Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-28T15:29:11Z

Feebasfactor: /* More replies to archived comments */ afterthought

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]

The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].

== Reply to comments in archive ==

: The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least.

: Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]

: So where are all the data Lenski said he analyzed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::As clearly stated in Professor Lenski's second response:

::: ''"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website." ''

::If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::: If "the relevant ... data ... are in our paper," as set forth in the above quote of Lenski, then he would not have much data. So don't pretend the data is too voluminous to turn over. The paper is only 8 pages long!

::: In fact, the graphs in the paper suggest to a reader that there is underlying data having greater resolution than a graph can provide, and yet those data have not been disclosed for public scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The resolution of the graphs are more than sufficient to communicate the results. If the figures didn't provide sufficient clarity for their purpose the authors would have also provided tables. For example, in figure 1 it's clear the culture shifted its growth pattern. In figure 2, one can see that the Cit+ cultures reach a higher density in the media, as indicated by the higher ODs. To a microbiologist, those results indicate that the Cit+ cells can utilize more of the nutrients in the media (in this case, citrate). --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:08, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'd like to chime in here and give some professional perspective. I am a molecular biologist -- if I asked him to, Prof. Lenski would send me a sample from his bacterial stocks (I have a -80 freezer and know how to work with E. coli). Let's assume for a minute that, like you, I strongly suspected the results of the paper (I do not, but that doesn't matter for this exercise). If this were the case, two of the routes I could take would be to re-analyze Prof. Lenski's data or replicate his experiments. In some cases, data and their analysis are complex, and re-analysis can yield different results than those the original author reached. This is the case for a large-scale association study, for example -- there are tons of data to analyze, and their analysis is not straightforward. In Prof. Lenski's case, however, the data are extremely simple, consisting primarily of 1) OD readings to measure fitness, and 2) colony counts.

:::: OD readings, or optical density readings, are obtained by pipetting a sample of cultured bacteria into a cuvette, sticking that cuvette into a machine, and writing down the number that pops up on a screen. Somewhere in a grad student's notebook (or in his/her computer) is a list of these numbers, and their average and range were presented in the PNAS paper at each generation in Figure 1 (similar data are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 5). So, in other words, the data you see in the paper *are all of the data* save for a second grade computation...which was probably performed by Excel. If you don't believe the data in the paper, then what do you expect to gain from seeing these "raw" data? There is so little to gain that I seriously doubt that PNAS would take such a request seriously.

:::: The meat of the paper, in Table 1, is a presentation of colony counts. These are obtained by another grad student picking up a bacterial culture plate, counting the number of colonies on it, and moving on to the next plate. Again, the raw data are what you see in the paper. What exactly are you expecting here, photographic images of all of the tens of thousands of plates they examined? That is just not done. Why would we go to that level of self-surveillance to please a small, vocal minority of people claiming fraud? The public's interest is not served by spending inordinate amounts of effort and money on this level of surveillance. If the science is correct, his experiment will be replicated.

:::: In sum, as others have tried to explain, there really isn't any more complex data for you to reasonably request. A slightly expanded list of numbers from what's in the paper won't get you anything if you already don't believe the data. And the scientific culture doesn't even come close to expecting photographic evidence of bacterial plates. Your best bet, if you really don't believe the results, is to get an outsider to try and replicate and/or confirm some portion of his results. The easy route would be to ask for a cit+ strain and its ancestor and see if they are indeed cit- and cit+. You could even sequence them to check if the cit+ strain is indeed an ancestor of the cit- strain, but while this would be a perfectly normal approach in a molecular biology lab with impressive resources, the entire concept of evolution is anathema to you, so I can't think of a reasonable criterion you would use to determine ancestry. If you wanted to go the hard route, you could obtain the ancestral strain and grow and measure them for years as Prof. Lenski's lab did.

:::: I hope this has been somewhat instructive for you in explaining why a request for "further data" will not bear fruit beyond the small amount of data that Prof. Lenski says he will make available. And why it is not reasonable to expect further data. I am more than happy to respond to questions or requests for clarification if you would like. -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 23:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: For starters, most of the opposition to releasing the data has been the false claim that the data are too voluminous to release. You are making the opposite claim, one which is more consistent with Lenski's paper: there is very little important data beyond what is in the 8-page paper. But that doesn't withstand scrutiny either.

::::: The "meat" of the paper is this, and at a minimum the data should be released for it (pp. 2-3 from paper):

:::::: Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?] Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?], the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?] These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?] After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?] A number [DATA?] of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?]. DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]

::::: Note, by the way, how the opponents of data disclosure seem to have no idea about what data Lenski actually has, which raises further questions about the merits of the conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I know some people here have claimed that the data are too voluminous to release...I didn't know what they were talking about, which is one reason I chimed in. Anyway, here are point by point responses to each of these cases. Turbidity checking: these data are either in a grad student's notebook somewhere, or were not recorded. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they weren't recorded due to the nature of the data (it's just a visual check of turbidity, and wouldn't be reported in a paper). Low concentration of glucose in DM25: this is a factual statement about DM25 media, not an observation. Contaminants: Same comment as the turbidity checking. Either there's a one-liner in a notebook somewhere ("Flask 25 contaminated, re-grew from stock") or nothing at all, since it's tangential to the experiment. Figure 1: As I already mentioned, the data in Figure 1 are actually comprehensive -- three data points went into each plotted point. They report the range (which give you a max and a min) and they also show you the average, which allows you to impute the third data point. Number of Cit clones, and the following comments except the last: these data are probably recorded in a lab notebook somewhere, since they're rather not tangential to the experiment. In addition, I'm sure they have a frozen stock of each cit+ bacterial clone that they checked, so this is something that could be easily independently verified. Cit+ is not a contaminant: no this would not be a part of the peer review...peer reviewers are not out to find fraud in general. Especially in the inaugural paper of somebody just nominated into the national academy. And the data underlying contamination checking are also extremely simple -- you plate the bacteria on an Ara+ plate and check sensitivity by eye, for example -- so there is no need to verify methodology as long as you trust the source.

:::::: You're basically asking for the lab notebooks of all of the grad students involved in the experiment over the 20 years. The data in these notebooks is going to be, in general, very simple (e.g., the statement "colony grew on Ara-, is a contaminant") since as I mentioned, there is no photographic evidence of this. Additionally, while biotech companies generally have document retention policies as required by law, no such policies exist at the academic level (although specific institutions may have them). A very few labs are run like well-oiled machines -- lab notebooks are kept up-to-date and thorough, and every observation is recorded. This is the ideal, but almost no labs actually achieve it, since most labs are working at 125% speed in an effort to get experiments finished and published.

:::::: If you're really interested in monitoring the quotidien details of these experiments, that falls outside of the scope of what PNAS and professional standards would require Lenski to release, I believe. You're not asking to re-analyze data so much as to oversee the entire experiment for fraud. This would require giving you all of Lenski's graduate students' lab notebooks for an indefinite period of time, which would be quite disruptive, and as I said probably wouldn't even yield the level of data you seem to want. In this case your best bet is to contact MSU and ask for a comprehensive review of Lenski's lab and his notes for this experiment. But without any evidence to point to said fraud, they will certainly deny your request for oversight. Your expectations here just aren't in line with professional standards in the field in the absence of any evidence of fraud. -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 10:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You've confirmed that the strident claims by Lenski defenders here that the data are too voluminous to release were nonsense. We'll see how many of them now admit they were wrong. Let's not hold our breaths!

::::::: But your opposite approach above, which essentially suggests there are no data that can be released, doesn't withstand scrutiny either. Figure 1 is plainly a low-resolution representation of underlying data that must exist. The greater resolution should be released. Similarly, there should be data underlying the essential assertion that a particular sample was not contaminated, while others had been. For example, the paper asserts that "[a] number of Cit clones were isolated." How many were isolated? If those data exist, then it should be released along with the other data. If those data do not exist, then that is even more telling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Regarding the questions highlighted by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] to which [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] also responded: Many of the techniques questioned are standard procedures that a trained microbiologist would understand. Let's take this apart by question:
:::::'''''...the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?]'''''
:::::This is qualitative observation. Every microbiologist does this when they pull their cultures out of the incubator. The evaluation an experimenter asks: Can you see through the test tube or not? Is the culture denser or lighter than the last time you looked? The reported observations are the data.

:::::: Show us the data. Are you suggesting that no record was kept of these observations??? I hope that's not what you mean. But say so if that is your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I described how the observation was performed. How the observations are recorded is up to the lab or technician culturing the cells.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?]'''''
:::::A reference to the description of the media is provided in the paper and is included on Lenksi's web pages. I linked to that page recently in another comment. It is general knowledge among microbiologists that nutrient limited cultures will reach a peak density that depends on the concentration of the limiting nutrient.

:::::: Again, show us the data. What was the concentration of glucose and, more importantly, did it ever change?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Consider rereading the paper and pull out references provided. It's there.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]'''''
:::::Observation. Either they saw contaminated cultures or not.

:::::: No kidding. The point, obviously, is to disclose the data of what they saw. How many is "occasional"? Show us the records supporting that claim, so we can assess the frequency of contamination compared to alleged evolution. At a minimum, it appears that contamination was significantly more frequent than the alleged evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Contamination is a problem every microbiology lab understands and encounters. What matters and what is particularly relevant to this experiment is the means of detecting and controlling for it. They outline the steps for detecting contaminating and restarting the experiment from uncontaminated stocks in their papers and web pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...(When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?]'''''
:::::Not relevant for the results. It's just the researchers describing how they restarted the experiment whenever they suspected a contamination. It does not alter the experimental outcome.

:::::: It is relevant, at a minimum for reasons stated in my above response. Also, did the restarting ever result in repeats of the observed contamination?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::They controlled for contamination. If their previous stock was contaminated they would likely return to ones before that last stock. Clearly, they would not want to work with contaminated stocks as it would damage the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?]'''''
:::::Higher resolution is not really necessary. The graph provides a ''qualitative'' visualization that starkly reveals that the cultures underwent a change that allowed them to grow to a significantly higher density than previously. They report in the text the actual generation were the change occurred and that seems to line up with the transition in the figure (take out a ruler, if necessary). Their subsequent experiments bracketed the strains from points before, during and after the obvious population transition.

:::::: Your answer here is absurd. Higher resolution in science is always helpful. The precise rate of change among the population would reveal much about what was really occurring. The data must exist to generate the graph. Disclose it rather than obscuring it with a low-resolution graph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If one reads the paper, one finds that weakly Cit+ clones arise earlier than the visible transition. Reading the paper one would see that they analyze the emergence times: ''Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen’s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells.'' As for the visible transition: ''After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days''. Note also that they performed 'replay' experiments (which took up the rest of the paper) to specifically analyze the frequency and times when Cit+ strains could be generated. The last half of the paper contains the work that provides information about the possible nature of the mutations and addresses your question.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS'''''
:::::Derived from observation. The phenotypic markers are described elsewhere and the means of testing them are well known by professional microbiologists. The origin of the strain and its markers can be determined by following the references provided. The strain is also referenced on Lenski's pages here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/strainsource.html Other information about how they tested markers can also be found starting from here (provided by Lenski): https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

:::::: Disclose the data so that independent reviewers can assess how reliable the claims are here. The methodology may be "well known" but only disclosure of the data will demonstrate whether the methodology was applied in a flawless manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Those are all based on visual observation. Reporting the observation *is* reporting data. Lenksi's group provides information how they performed the tests so that any professional microbiologist would be able to follow the work. The way for someone to test the methodology is to repeat the tests on the strains themselves. Recall that Lenski did say that the strains would be made available to labs. So, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves that "the methodology was applied in a flawless manner", I suggest they go find a friendly microbiologist to request and perform the tests for them.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations'''''
:::::Report of observation. They sequenced the specified genes and found no difference in base-by-base comparisons. There is no need in this paper to print all sequences side by side as they're the same. The words, "no difference" transmits the same information in less space as showing all the identical sequences side-by-side with the original, previously released sequence. See also the next lines.

:::::: No one suggested that the DNA be published "in this paper," but rather that the data be made publicly available for independent review and verification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Again, the sequences are available. If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30).'''''
:::::See reference (30) from Lenksi's paper. It describes how the genes in those populations were originally sequenced. The ancestral sequences were uploaded into GeneBank, a publically accessible sequence repository, and the identifying mutations were presented in the supplemental table published on the PNAS web site along with the original paper.

:::::: That's spelled "publicly", not "publically", and again disclosure of the data concerning the mutations is necessary to verify the claims made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published and Lenski has stated he would make the strains available.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]'''''
:::::The authors reported the actual data in a manner that is readily understood and accepted by microbiologists. The data and analysis is not terribly complex or confusing for someone familiar with the field (and quite a few who aren't expert microbiologists). Andy, I've seen little requested that isn't standard practice & generally understood among microbiologists or not already available if one follows the references provided in the paper.

:::::: You're right that the "data and analysis" are "not terribly complex." Which is why the odd withholding the data merely serves to heighten skepticism towards the claims made.
:::::::YMMV. I've encountered no one on the web or elsewhere and trained in microbiology who thinks the data is being 'oddly' withheld. Most of us manage to locate the references and other sources provided.

:::::: The bottom line is that some think that Lenski's claims must be accepted on faith rather than independent verification of the data. That is not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just a word about reading the professional, scientific literature: Scientific papers are by the nature of their medium, mostly brief, to the point and highly condensed. Rather than repeat all the background information that others in the field may already know and encouraged to limit the length by journals with page limits, authors provide references to other papers that contain the previously published information. They also use terms that are well-defined within their profession to shorten the text further. One wouldn't expect a layman with no experience in biology to easily digest the paper. To point is not to obfuscate but to simmer the paper down to essentials that others in the field can readily understand. With some effort to become familiar with the underlying & established techniques & science, determined, non-experts can eventually pick up this information. I'd respectfully suggest to anyone *seriously* interested in the paper but not comfortable with the technical details, that they may want to find a knowledgeable biologist willing to explain. At least they should read the entire paper and the additional papers referenced within. Consider asking DI's research institute or Behe for help with understanding the techniques behind the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your sermon is misplaced. Taxpayers paid for Lenski's study, and any real scientist should reject the inexplicable withholding the data underlying its conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::YMMV but in my view, it's like going to a librarian and demanding they provide something made from paper. My opinion is that if someone: doesn't know what one wants, doesn't appear to understand the report, demands to see 'the data' without appearing to know what they're asking for in the first place or how to process the information, I'm not sure how any experimental scientist would comply with that request. Furthermore, I'd find it odd that the requests persist despite the fact that the paper was indeed published in compliance with establish profession standards and the strains were made available (in compliance with journal and university research policy). Again, if someone thinks the work was done incorrectly they can get a lab to request the strains and try to repeat many of the observations. That is why the materials and methods sections exist in papers: To allow others to repeat and confirm the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, there are essentially no real scientists left. Peer review is almost never done with the amount of scrutiny Aschlafly discusses. Reviewers, even for journals with long submission-to-publication times, do not request the original data. When original data are requested, it is by researchers who want to continue the work and write publications of their own on the subject. There just aren't incentives to do thorough reviews.

Aschlafly, I think you're right that review should have been more stringent. I think you're wrong, however, to conclude that an exception was made here. Its true that review time was very short in this case. The total number of man-hours devoted to '''any''' review, however, is seldom more than 40.

What does "real scientists" mean? If it means practicing academics today, it's sadly wrong. Most [[professor values|professors]] are self-centered, and would see true peer review as impinging on their personal freedom. "Who has time," they think, "to transcribe lab notebooks? I've got more papers to publish!" I bet the majority would even resist your request to Lenski. This liberal attitude towards truth is what leads to claptrap like [[Particle/wave duality theory]] and [[COBE|the theory of cosmic microwave background radiation]]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 09:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: With respect to your comments on peer review, note that there were merely 14 days between the time the Lenski manuscript was sent for review and the time it was confirmed for publication. I doubt even 10 good hours of real peer review were devoted to the Lenski manuscript, let alone the 40 you mention. The 14 days included administrative and communication delays, and business and weekend days. It looks like a "rubber stamp" process to me for evaluating this Lenski manuscript, in contrast to other papers published by the same journal. It seems possible to me that there was no meaningful peer review at all for the Lenski manuscript, and it may be worth making inquiries of the Journal on this point alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::The paper is straightforward and the data clear. Lenski's work is well known within the microbiology community and therefore much of the preceding information is already generally understood (i.e. reviewers don't need to dig through all the references). I can see it sailing through review.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, you seem to be saying the latest paper was not given a thorough, independent peer review. I agree with that analysis. In fact, it probably "sailed through" without any meaningful peer review at all, despite published journal procedures claiming to require meaningful peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

== More replies to archived comments ==

:"''Why do you say that it does not support evolution?''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler]] (Asked by JPohl of me):
See my post (now in the archive) dated 23:05, 16 June 2008 (search for that text).

:"''The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#E. coli in our bowels]]) (in a question by Wandering to me)
:"''Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false''" (Same section) (by Rspeed in a response to Jimxchue)
How do we know that they are not the same species or genus? "Species" is defined in terms of interfertility, something that cannot be determined for fossils. And size doesn't mean much. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are in the same ''sub''-species, but the ratio of size difference is greater than 1:3.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Philip, I read your post and I don't think it addresses anything other than semantics. The bacteria was standard E Coli, and then after tens of thousands of generations, it started to metabolise citrate, which normally ''distinguishes'' E Coli from other species. That's very clearly the process of changing inherited traits over generations - ie, evolution.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't help wondering if you skimmed it too quickly and didn't pick which bit I was referring to here. I'll explain it in a different way:
::* According to evolution, there must be millions of information-generating mutations to go from microbes to man.
::* According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one.
::Lenski has allegedly found ''one'' information-generating mutation. So which of those two competing predictions does this evidence match the best?
:: I also pointed out two weeks ago on Andy's talk page the following:
{{QuoteBox|It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved ''hundreds'' if not ''thousands'' of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore ''evidence'' that evolution can't explain our existence.}}
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::There are some flaws in that logic though:
:::*Simple cells likely first appeared 4 billion years ago. Given how many existed simultaneously (an entire planet at some times v. a few petri dishes) and that simpler living beings have shorter lifespans, going from "microbes to man" (or something as genetically complex as man) is really a matter of time.
:::*31,500 generations is not a minimum number of generations for a rare, complex trait to manifest. That just happened to be the case here. Dumb luck could have had significant mutations develop at any earlier (or later) point.
:::*What definition of "ability" are you using here? All of the bacteria also evolved larger cells - would you count that as an "ability"? According to Lenski's work, "enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over"
:::*Bacteria are asexual. Animals and plants reproduce through sex, which causes significantly more genetic variation.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, going from microbe to man is ''not'' a matter of time. If you are travelling south from Sydney, how long will it take you to reach Brisbane? Answer: It's not a question of how long, because you are going in the wrong direction. The same applies here: you can't go from microbes to man when mutations destroy information rather than create it. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ here].
:::: Yes, perhaps 31,500 generations just ''happened'' to be the case here. As you say, it ''might'' occur sooner, and it ''might'' take longer. But my argument was based on the ''evidence'' of this example, not on what speculation ''might'' allow for. The ''evidence'' is not ''proof'', but the ''evidence'' in this case is ''against'' evolution.
:::: I'm talking about the ability claimed by the research, to metabolise citrate, that apparently requires new genetic information. Being bigger presumably does not require that, else they would have trumpeted that as well.
:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Philip,
:::::With due respect, I see a fairly serious problem with the position you're taking. One of the central arguments against evolution is that mutations ''cannot'' produce new information. Now you're arguing that:

:::::''"According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one."''

:::::The problem is that, if it can "very rarely" happen "by chance," then the premise that mutations do not produce new genetic information is simply false. Instead, we're faced with a debate over ''how frequently'' mutations produce new genetic information. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, I see your point about how the creation of new information through mutation does not necessarily contradict creationism at all. However, it hardly seems like evidence ''for'' it; and extrapolating as you did (trying to claim the timeframe for these bacteria applies equally to the supposed evolution of humans) honestly seems like mostly speculation... Which I admit is often overused by evolutionists as well, but it still isn't a good basis for deciding which theory the evidence favors. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==

IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:

(1) -- whether evolution of citrate-eating (Cit+) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment (I noted that a "goal" does not have to be a sure result), and

(2) -- whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving insufficient glucose supplies in order to cause alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria.

Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions is discussed in the following article on my blog --

[http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/06/co-author-of-e-coli-paper-dodges.html Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions]

More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) --
[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php A new step in evolution]

Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoods[[User:DeanWinter|DeanWinter]] 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:: LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: If you're serious, then please provide some quotes and links to back up your statements. Also contribute to entries rather than violating the [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Reply to Aschlafly's comment of 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT) --
:''"LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. ('''I did not find the answer in the paper.''')"'' (emphasis added) I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment. He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing." And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn.

:''"Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population?"'' As I said, I asked Blount whether favoring Cit+ evolution was the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient supplies of glucose so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation), and he did not answer.

:''"They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved."'' I disagree with you here, for the reasons stated at the end of my first comment in this talk page.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks for your insightful comments and continued efforts to obtain the truth.

:: It has been conceded, finally, by Lenski defenders that the data are not too voluminous to turn over. The underlying data for Figure 1 in the paper for the population expansion during the alleged evolution of the Cit-plus phenotype, for example, could shed light on whether contamination played a role. There is no legitimate reason to withhold the greater resolution from the public, which funded the study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::::People need to stop asking to "turn over the data for public scrutiny" before they've fully read and comprehended the papers and information released to date. E. Coli don't live off of citrate - it's a characteristic of the species - so there was no "goal to promote the percentage that could do it". The fact that a certain population were able to after after thousands of generations of reproduction in a controlled, monitored setting was the key observation, and Lenski's team is still investigating the specifics of when and how that characteristic was enabled. It reflects poorly on an online encyclopedia that the leadership is still questioning whether sufficient data to understand the experiment has been released. The most relevant data from the experiment is the actual bacteria itself, and Lenski has publicly offered to share samples of them with any scientist qualified to handle them, who follows the proper, professional protocols. The Consevapedia community has yet to see a specific, professional response to Professor Lenski's second letter other than a flippant remark about attitude and a continued insistence that data has not been revealed when it clearly has.

::::I'll probably earn another 90/10 block for this, but when you continue to question Lenski's work while admitting that you've only skimmed the related paper, you accomplish nothing but setting a poor example of intellectual honesty for the students who use CP as a trustworthy resource. With all respect, I would ask that instead, you retain the services of a qualified scientist who can engage in a proper review of Lenski's work, whose could then post an ongoing journal of the review process and its findings here on CP. ''That'' would be an appropriate lesson for the students in the proper application of scientific scrutiny to findings that some find questionable. Godspeed. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent (see Lenski's early papers) and it's actually tangential in the overall context of the long-term experiment. Zachary Blount describes the purpose of citrate in the media in his responses at Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php (see replies #115 & #270). Citrate was not added to be a carbon nutrient in the media but as a non-metabolizable chelator (the three carboxyl groups of citrate can bind certain cations in solution). The recipe for the medium was taken from other microbiologists who developed the recipe as a general culture medium back in 1949. Lenski's description of the DM25 media is here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/dm25liquid.html. Glucose was the intended carbon source. If you read the Lenski article cited by Blount (Phenotypic and genomic evolution during a 20,000-generation experiment with the bacterium Escherichia coli. -- available here: https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/, you'll see the setup and reasons for performing the experiments (An earlier article at generation 2000 is here: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1991,%20AmNat,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf). Basically, Lenksi wanted to see how mutations arise and move through populations over time. Even if the media and growth conditions remain pretty consistent over time, the populations continuously shift and change. That is because for a bacterium in the experiment the 'environment' is not just made up of the flask and media but also the *other cells in the flask* with which it must compete. This results in a continuously shifting competitive environment as mutations arise in lineages. Citrate utilization was just one of the many interesting variations acquired over the course of the experiment. Read his other papers for more details and a fuller understanding of the open-ended experiment's scope.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I looked at the blog and found it to be remarkably uninformative. I saw nothing about Blount and Lenski's purpose, nothing that persuasively ruled out non-evolutionary reasons for the citrate-eating bacteria, and nothing to justify the withholding of the data to reveal greater resolution than provided by the figures in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Blogging has limits, which is why I also provided references to Lenski's other papers, including some of those Blount mentioned would be worth reading.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::With regard to 'competent scientists' consider that Behe, in his discussions on this topic has not argued about the 'mechanics' and data presented in Lenski's paper. In his review that can be found on the amazon.com website, he calls Lenksi's work 'fascinating' (and means it in a good way).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

That was strange -- for several hours I was not able to post here, but now I can. Here is my response to Argon's comment of 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Argon said, "The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent"

I didn't ask if Cit+ (citrate-eating E. coli bacteria) evolution was the "main intent" of the experiment -- I only asked if Cit+ evolution was one of the original "goals." There is a misunderstanding about what the word "goal" means -- a goal does not have to be a sure result. In searches for the Lost Dutchman Mine and the ivory-billed woodpecker, finding them are "goals." A "goal" can be one of many goals, a secondary goal, a longshot goal, or whatever. And "intent" is not part of the definition of "goal" -- "intent" generally means what one plans to do, but one cannot plan to achieve an uncertain result. BTW, the term "citrate metabolizers" is misleading because the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate but did not have the ability to pass it through the cell walls.

Zachary Blount's following statement in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog indicates that Cit+ evolution was one of the original goals of the experiment:

''"When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding - I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly)."''

Blount then essentially contradicted his above statement by saying that "the intent of the experiment was never to evolve a Cit+ E. coli variant" (comment #115) and that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" (comment #122).

Also, the following factors suggest that Cit+ evolution was an original goal of the experiment:

(1) Cit+ evolution had been observed once before. Blount reported in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog, ''"there has been only one report of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli in the past century (Hall, B. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 151: 269 ï¿½ 273.)"). ''

(2) I and others assumed that a purpose of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria an insufficient glucose supply so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor Cit+ evolution. I asked Blount if this was in fact a purpose of the glucose-cycling and he did not answer. I asked what the purpose of the glucose-cycling was if favoring Cit+ evolution was not the purpose, and he did not answer.

Was there a research proposal for this whole experiment that started in 1988, and if so, what does that proposal say, if anything, about my questions? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:I may be missing something here, but why is the supposed "goal" of the experiment important? It's the important thing the result?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::British_cons''':''' Suppose a committee is considering this research for an award or a prize and asks the researchers the same questions I asked''':''' (1) Was Cit+ evolution a goal of the experiment? and (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose of the glucose-cycling? Are the researchers going to answer, “No, it was not a goal — it was just an unforeseen accident. We don’t deserve any credit for it.”

::Also, IMO knowing the goals of the experiment and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the experiment. Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as shown above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 12:27, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::There are two possibilities. It was the goal. It was not the goal. The result is that they have produced Cit+. If it was the goal then they have demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate. Well done. If it was not the goal then serendipity has favored them. It is no means unusual in science for unexpected results to further the cause of science. Nobody would reject or question them because they were unexpected. Indeed they are even more welcome if they're unexpected because something new has been learned. So again - well done. I don't see the problem.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::British_cons''':''' As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident? Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as I showed above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions. As I noted above, Cit+ evolution had been observed before, so it seems that repeating it was a likely goal of the experiment. Also, I asked about the purpose(s) of the glucose-cycling and I got no answer to that question. Knowing the goals of the research and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the research.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 14:07, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? You keep repeating this "no straight answers" argument, and people keep pointing out your error, and you've yet to see this argument through to the end anywhere. Conservapedia is already struggling to maintain its current signal-to-noise ratio, please stop forum-shopping here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT) ''<-knows where all the good sales are...''

:: Aziraphale said, ''"Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? "'' I have already spent a helluva lot of time responding to those criticisms on Carl Zimmer's blog and my own blog! (see links in my first comment on this talk page) But I have been kicked off of Carl Zimmer's blog, and my own blog gets only about 50 visits per day. In contrast, this talk page is getting thousands of visits per day, so it is obviously a much better forum for publicizing my views.

::''"You keep repeating this 'no straight answers' argument, and people keep pointing out your error."'' And I keep pointing out the errors in arguments that attempt to point out my alleged error.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 16:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, fair enough. Enjoy your time here. :) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:05, 27 June 2008 (EDT) ''<-o/~know when to hold 'em... o/~''

::::''"Enjoy your time here."'' I intend to. I never before had such a good opportunity to publicize my views. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 02:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It has been brought to my attention that there may be a problem with your question. You wish to know about the "goal" of the experiment. Is that a reasonable way to ask a question of a scientific experiment? Shouldn't the question be "What hypothesis was being tested?"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, it was an oversight. It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page. It has since been linked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive Link?==

Can a link be provided to the archive for this page? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:48, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
:No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Whence Lenski? ==

Lenski's article was published in the PNAS, which is from the National Academy of Sciences. Just [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+academy+of+sciences%22+god Google their name and "god"] and see why they care so much about "proving" evolution: 93% are atheists! Maybe PNAS isn't a professional organization at all, but a fraternity designed to influence American public policy away from Christian principles. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp] {{unsigned|Drochld}}

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-28T15:27:24Z

Feebasfactor: /* More replies to archived comments */ good point, not necessarily contradictory, but "evidence" is just speculating

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]

The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].

== Reply to comments in archive ==

: The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least.

: Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]

: So where are all the data Lenski said he analyzed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::As clearly stated in Professor Lenski's second response:

::: ''"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website." ''

::If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::: If "the relevant ... data ... are in our paper," as set forth in the above quote of Lenski, then he would not have much data. So don't pretend the data is too voluminous to turn over. The paper is only 8 pages long!

::: In fact, the graphs in the paper suggest to a reader that there is underlying data having greater resolution than a graph can provide, and yet those data have not been disclosed for public scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The resolution of the graphs are more than sufficient to communicate the results. If the figures didn't provide sufficient clarity for their purpose the authors would have also provided tables. For example, in figure 1 it's clear the culture shifted its growth pattern. In figure 2, one can see that the Cit+ cultures reach a higher density in the media, as indicated by the higher ODs. To a microbiologist, those results indicate that the Cit+ cells can utilize more of the nutrients in the media (in this case, citrate). --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:08, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'd like to chime in here and give some professional perspective. I am a molecular biologist -- if I asked him to, Prof. Lenski would send me a sample from his bacterial stocks (I have a -80 freezer and know how to work with E. coli). Let's assume for a minute that, like you, I strongly suspected the results of the paper (I do not, but that doesn't matter for this exercise). If this were the case, two of the routes I could take would be to re-analyze Prof. Lenski's data or replicate his experiments. In some cases, data and their analysis are complex, and re-analysis can yield different results than those the original author reached. This is the case for a large-scale association study, for example -- there are tons of data to analyze, and their analysis is not straightforward. In Prof. Lenski's case, however, the data are extremely simple, consisting primarily of 1) OD readings to measure fitness, and 2) colony counts.

:::: OD readings, or optical density readings, are obtained by pipetting a sample of cultured bacteria into a cuvette, sticking that cuvette into a machine, and writing down the number that pops up on a screen. Somewhere in a grad student's notebook (or in his/her computer) is a list of these numbers, and their average and range were presented in the PNAS paper at each generation in Figure 1 (similar data are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 5). So, in other words, the data you see in the paper *are all of the data* save for a second grade computation...which was probably performed by Excel. If you don't believe the data in the paper, then what do you expect to gain from seeing these "raw" data? There is so little to gain that I seriously doubt that PNAS would take such a request seriously.

:::: The meat of the paper, in Table 1, is a presentation of colony counts. These are obtained by another grad student picking up a bacterial culture plate, counting the number of colonies on it, and moving on to the next plate. Again, the raw data are what you see in the paper. What exactly are you expecting here, photographic images of all of the tens of thousands of plates they examined? That is just not done. Why would we go to that level of self-surveillance to please a small, vocal minority of people claiming fraud? The public's interest is not served by spending inordinate amounts of effort and money on this level of surveillance. If the science is correct, his experiment will be replicated.

:::: In sum, as others have tried to explain, there really isn't any more complex data for you to reasonably request. A slightly expanded list of numbers from what's in the paper won't get you anything if you already don't believe the data. And the scientific culture doesn't even come close to expecting photographic evidence of bacterial plates. Your best bet, if you really don't believe the results, is to get an outsider to try and replicate and/or confirm some portion of his results. The easy route would be to ask for a cit+ strain and its ancestor and see if they are indeed cit- and cit+. You could even sequence them to check if the cit+ strain is indeed an ancestor of the cit- strain, but while this would be a perfectly normal approach in a molecular biology lab with impressive resources, the entire concept of evolution is anathema to you, so I can't think of a reasonable criterion you would use to determine ancestry. If you wanted to go the hard route, you could obtain the ancestral strain and grow and measure them for years as Prof. Lenski's lab did.

:::: I hope this has been somewhat instructive for you in explaining why a request for "further data" will not bear fruit beyond the small amount of data that Prof. Lenski says he will make available. And why it is not reasonable to expect further data. I am more than happy to respond to questions or requests for clarification if you would like. -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 23:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: For starters, most of the opposition to releasing the data has been the false claim that the data are too voluminous to release. You are making the opposite claim, one which is more consistent with Lenski's paper: there is very little important data beyond what is in the 8-page paper. But that doesn't withstand scrutiny either.

::::: The "meat" of the paper is this, and at a minimum the data should be released for it (pp. 2-3 from paper):

:::::: Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?] Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?], the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?] These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?] After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?] A number [DATA?] of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?]. DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]

::::: Note, by the way, how the opponents of data disclosure seem to have no idea about what data Lenski actually has, which raises further questions about the merits of the conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I know some people here have claimed that the data are too voluminous to release...I didn't know what they were talking about, which is one reason I chimed in. Anyway, here are point by point responses to each of these cases. Turbidity checking: these data are either in a grad student's notebook somewhere, or were not recorded. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they weren't recorded due to the nature of the data (it's just a visual check of turbidity, and wouldn't be reported in a paper). Low concentration of glucose in DM25: this is a factual statement about DM25 media, not an observation. Contaminants: Same comment as the turbidity checking. Either there's a one-liner in a notebook somewhere ("Flask 25 contaminated, re-grew from stock") or nothing at all, since it's tangential to the experiment. Figure 1: As I already mentioned, the data in Figure 1 are actually comprehensive -- three data points went into each plotted point. They report the range (which give you a max and a min) and they also show you the average, which allows you to impute the third data point. Number of Cit clones, and the following comments except the last: these data are probably recorded in a lab notebook somewhere, since they're rather not tangential to the experiment. In addition, I'm sure they have a frozen stock of each cit+ bacterial clone that they checked, so this is something that could be easily independently verified. Cit+ is not a contaminant: no this would not be a part of the peer review...peer reviewers are not out to find fraud in general. Especially in the inaugural paper of somebody just nominated into the national academy. And the data underlying contamination checking are also extremely simple -- you plate the bacteria on an Ara+ plate and check sensitivity by eye, for example -- so there is no need to verify methodology as long as you trust the source.

:::::: You're basically asking for the lab notebooks of all of the grad students involved in the experiment over the 20 years. The data in these notebooks is going to be, in general, very simple (e.g., the statement "colony grew on Ara-, is a contaminant") since as I mentioned, there is no photographic evidence of this. Additionally, while biotech companies generally have document retention policies as required by law, no such policies exist at the academic level (although specific institutions may have them). A very few labs are run like well-oiled machines -- lab notebooks are kept up-to-date and thorough, and every observation is recorded. This is the ideal, but almost no labs actually achieve it, since most labs are working at 125% speed in an effort to get experiments finished and published.

:::::: If you're really interested in monitoring the quotidien details of these experiments, that falls outside of the scope of what PNAS and professional standards would require Lenski to release, I believe. You're not asking to re-analyze data so much as to oversee the entire experiment for fraud. This would require giving you all of Lenski's graduate students' lab notebooks for an indefinite period of time, which would be quite disruptive, and as I said probably wouldn't even yield the level of data you seem to want. In this case your best bet is to contact MSU and ask for a comprehensive review of Lenski's lab and his notes for this experiment. But without any evidence to point to said fraud, they will certainly deny your request for oversight. Your expectations here just aren't in line with professional standards in the field in the absence of any evidence of fraud. -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 10:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You've confirmed that the strident claims by Lenski defenders here that the data are too voluminous to release were nonsense. We'll see how many of them now admit they were wrong. Let's not hold our breaths!

::::::: But your opposite approach above, which essentially suggests there are no data that can be released, doesn't withstand scrutiny either. Figure 1 is plainly a low-resolution representation of underlying data that must exist. The greater resolution should be released. Similarly, there should be data underlying the essential assertion that a particular sample was not contaminated, while others had been. For example, the paper asserts that "[a] number of Cit clones were isolated." How many were isolated? If those data exist, then it should be released along with the other data. If those data do not exist, then that is even more telling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Regarding the questions highlighted by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] to which [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] also responded: Many of the techniques questioned are standard procedures that a trained microbiologist would understand. Let's take this apart by question:
:::::'''''...the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?]'''''
:::::This is qualitative observation. Every microbiologist does this when they pull their cultures out of the incubator. The evaluation an experimenter asks: Can you see through the test tube or not? Is the culture denser or lighter than the last time you looked? The reported observations are the data.

:::::: Show us the data. Are you suggesting that no record was kept of these observations??? I hope that's not what you mean. But say so if that is your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I described how the observation was performed. How the observations are recorded is up to the lab or technician culturing the cells.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?]'''''
:::::A reference to the description of the media is provided in the paper and is included on Lenksi's web pages. I linked to that page recently in another comment. It is general knowledge among microbiologists that nutrient limited cultures will reach a peak density that depends on the concentration of the limiting nutrient.

:::::: Again, show us the data. What was the concentration of glucose and, more importantly, did it ever change?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Consider rereading the paper and pull out references provided. It's there.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]'''''
:::::Observation. Either they saw contaminated cultures or not.

:::::: No kidding. The point, obviously, is to disclose the data of what they saw. How many is "occasional"? Show us the records supporting that claim, so we can assess the frequency of contamination compared to alleged evolution. At a minimum, it appears that contamination was significantly more frequent than the alleged evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Contamination is a problem every microbiology lab understands and encounters. What matters and what is particularly relevant to this experiment is the means of detecting and controlling for it. They outline the steps for detecting contaminating and restarting the experiment from uncontaminated stocks in their papers and web pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...(When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?]'''''
:::::Not relevant for the results. It's just the researchers describing how they restarted the experiment whenever they suspected a contamination. It does not alter the experimental outcome.

:::::: It is relevant, at a minimum for reasons stated in my above response. Also, did the restarting ever result in repeats of the observed contamination?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::They controlled for contamination. If their previous stock was contaminated they would likely return to ones before that last stock. Clearly, they would not want to work with contaminated stocks as it would damage the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?]'''''
:::::Higher resolution is not really necessary. The graph provides a ''qualitative'' visualization that starkly reveals that the cultures underwent a change that allowed them to grow to a significantly higher density than previously. They report in the text the actual generation were the change occurred and that seems to line up with the transition in the figure (take out a ruler, if necessary). Their subsequent experiments bracketed the strains from points before, during and after the obvious population transition.

:::::: Your answer here is absurd. Higher resolution in science is always helpful. The precise rate of change among the population would reveal much about what was really occurring. The data must exist to generate the graph. Disclose it rather than obscuring it with a low-resolution graph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If one reads the paper, one finds that weakly Cit+ clones arise earlier than the visible transition. Reading the paper one would see that they analyze the emergence times: ''Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen’s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells.'' As for the visible transition: ''After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days''. Note also that they performed 'replay' experiments (which took up the rest of the paper) to specifically analyze the frequency and times when Cit+ strains could be generated. The last half of the paper contains the work that provides information about the possible nature of the mutations and addresses your question.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS'''''
:::::Derived from observation. The phenotypic markers are described elsewhere and the means of testing them are well known by professional microbiologists. The origin of the strain and its markers can be determined by following the references provided. The strain is also referenced on Lenski's pages here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/strainsource.html Other information about how they tested markers can also be found starting from here (provided by Lenski): https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

:::::: Disclose the data so that independent reviewers can assess how reliable the claims are here. The methodology may be "well known" but only disclosure of the data will demonstrate whether the methodology was applied in a flawless manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Those are all based on visual observation. Reporting the observation *is* reporting data. Lenksi's group provides information how they performed the tests so that any professional microbiologist would be able to follow the work. The way for someone to test the methodology is to repeat the tests on the strains themselves. Recall that Lenski did say that the strains would be made available to labs. So, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves that "the methodology was applied in a flawless manner", I suggest they go find a friendly microbiologist to request and perform the tests for them.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations'''''
:::::Report of observation. They sequenced the specified genes and found no difference in base-by-base comparisons. There is no need in this paper to print all sequences side by side as they're the same. The words, "no difference" transmits the same information in less space as showing all the identical sequences side-by-side with the original, previously released sequence. See also the next lines.

:::::: No one suggested that the DNA be published "in this paper," but rather that the data be made publicly available for independent review and verification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Again, the sequences are available. If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30).'''''
:::::See reference (30) from Lenksi's paper. It describes how the genes in those populations were originally sequenced. The ancestral sequences were uploaded into GeneBank, a publically accessible sequence repository, and the identifying mutations were presented in the supplemental table published on the PNAS web site along with the original paper.

:::::: That's spelled "publicly", not "publically", and again disclosure of the data concerning the mutations is necessary to verify the claims made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published and Lenski has stated he would make the strains available.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]'''''
:::::The authors reported the actual data in a manner that is readily understood and accepted by microbiologists. The data and analysis is not terribly complex or confusing for someone familiar with the field (and quite a few who aren't expert microbiologists). Andy, I've seen little requested that isn't standard practice & generally understood among microbiologists or not already available if one follows the references provided in the paper.

:::::: You're right that the "data and analysis" are "not terribly complex." Which is why the odd withholding the data merely serves to heighten skepticism towards the claims made.
:::::::YMMV. I've encountered no one on the web or elsewhere and trained in microbiology who thinks the data is being 'oddly' withheld. Most of us manage to locate the references and other sources provided.

:::::: The bottom line is that some think that Lenski's claims must be accepted on faith rather than independent verification of the data. That is not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just a word about reading the professional, scientific literature: Scientific papers are by the nature of their medium, mostly brief, to the point and highly condensed. Rather than repeat all the background information that others in the field may already know and encouraged to limit the length by journals with page limits, authors provide references to other papers that contain the previously published information. They also use terms that are well-defined within their profession to shorten the text further. One wouldn't expect a layman with no experience in biology to easily digest the paper. To point is not to obfuscate but to simmer the paper down to essentials that others in the field can readily understand. With some effort to become familiar with the underlying & established techniques & science, determined, non-experts can eventually pick up this information. I'd respectfully suggest to anyone *seriously* interested in the paper but not comfortable with the technical details, that they may want to find a knowledgeable biologist willing to explain. At least they should read the entire paper and the additional papers referenced within. Consider asking DI's research institute or Behe for help with understanding the techniques behind the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your sermon is misplaced. Taxpayers paid for Lenski's study, and any real scientist should reject the inexplicable withholding the data underlying its conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::YMMV but in my view, it's like going to a librarian and demanding they provide something made from paper. My opinion is that if someone: doesn't know what one wants, doesn't appear to understand the report, demands to see 'the data' without appearing to know what they're asking for in the first place or how to process the information, I'm not sure how any experimental scientist would comply with that request. Furthermore, I'd find it odd that the requests persist despite the fact that the paper was indeed published in compliance with establish profession standards and the strains were made available (in compliance with journal and university research policy). Again, if someone thinks the work was done incorrectly they can get a lab to request the strains and try to repeat many of the observations. That is why the materials and methods sections exist in papers: To allow others to repeat and confirm the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, there are essentially no real scientists left. Peer review is almost never done with the amount of scrutiny Aschlafly discusses. Reviewers, even for journals with long submission-to-publication times, do not request the original data. When original data are requested, it is by researchers who want to continue the work and write publications of their own on the subject. There just aren't incentives to do thorough reviews.

Aschlafly, I think you're right that review should have been more stringent. I think you're wrong, however, to conclude that an exception was made here. Its true that review time was very short in this case. The total number of man-hours devoted to '''any''' review, however, is seldom more than 40.

What does "real scientists" mean? If it means practicing academics today, it's sadly wrong. Most [[professor values|professors]] are self-centered, and would see true peer review as impinging on their personal freedom. "Who has time," they think, "to transcribe lab notebooks? I've got more papers to publish!" I bet the majority would even resist your request to Lenski. This liberal attitude towards truth is what leads to claptrap like [[Particle/wave duality theory]] and [[COBE|the theory of cosmic microwave background radiation]]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 09:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: With respect to your comments on peer review, note that there were merely 14 days between the time the Lenski manuscript was sent for review and the time it was confirmed for publication. I doubt even 10 good hours of real peer review were devoted to the Lenski manuscript, let alone the 40 you mention. The 14 days included administrative and communication delays, and business and weekend days. It looks like a "rubber stamp" process to me for evaluating this Lenski manuscript, in contrast to other papers published by the same journal. It seems possible to me that there was no meaningful peer review at all for the Lenski manuscript, and it may be worth making inquiries of the Journal on this point alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::The paper is straightforward and the data clear. Lenski's work is well known within the microbiology community and therefore much of the preceding information is already generally understood (i.e. reviewers don't need to dig through all the references). I can see it sailing through review.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, you seem to be saying the latest paper was not given a thorough, independent peer review. I agree with that analysis. In fact, it probably "sailed through" without any meaningful peer review at all, despite published journal procedures claiming to require meaningful peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

== More replies to archived comments ==

:"''Why do you say that it does not support evolution?''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler]] (Asked by JPohl of me):
See my post (now in the archive) dated 23:05, 16 June 2008 (search for that text).

:"''The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#E. coli in our bowels]]) (in a question by Wandering to me)
:"''Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false''" (Same section) (by Rspeed in a response to Jimxchue)
How do we know that they are not the same species or genus? "Species" is defined in terms of interfertility, something that cannot be determined for fossils. And size doesn't mean much. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are in the same ''sub''-species, but the ratio of size difference is greater than 1:3.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Philip, I read your post and I don't think it addresses anything other than semantics. The bacteria was standard E Coli, and then after tens of thousands of generations, it started to metabolise citrate, which normally ''distinguishes'' E Coli from other species. That's very clearly the process of changing inherited traits over generations - ie, evolution.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't help wondering if you skimmed it too quickly and didn't pick which bit I was referring to here. I'll explain it in a different way:
::* According to evolution, there must be millions of information-generating mutations to go from microbes to man.
::* According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one.
::Lenski has allegedly found ''one'' information-generating mutation. So which of those two competing predictions does this evidence match the best?
:: I also pointed out two weeks ago on Andy's talk page the following:
{{QuoteBox|It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved ''hundreds'' if not ''thousands'' of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore ''evidence'' that evolution can't explain our existence.}}
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::There are some flaws in that logic though:
:::*Simple cells likely first appeared 4 billion years ago. Given how many existed simultaneously (an entire planet at some times v. a few petri dishes) and that simpler living beings have shorter lifespans, going from "microbes to man" (or something as genetically complex as man) is really a matter of time.
:::*31,500 generations is not a minimum number of generations for a rare, complex trait to manifest. That just happened to be the case here. Dumb luck could have had significant mutations develop at any earlier (or later) point.
:::*What definition of "ability" are you using here? All of the bacteria also evolved larger cells - would you count that as an "ability"? According to Lenski's work, "enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over"
:::*Bacteria are asexual. Animals and plants reproduce through sex, which causes significantly more genetic variation.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, going from microbe to man is ''not'' a matter of time. If you are travelling south from Sydney, how long will it take you to reach Brisbane? Answer: It's not a question of how long, because you are going in the wrong direction. The same applies here: you can't go from microbes to man when mutations destroy information rather than create it. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ here].
:::: Yes, perhaps 31,500 generations just ''happened'' to be the case here. As you say, it ''might'' occur sooner, and it ''might'' take longer. But my argument was based on the ''evidence'' of this example, not on what speculation ''might'' allow for. The ''evidence'' is not ''proof'', but the ''evidence'' in this case is ''against'' evolution.
:::: I'm talking about the ability claimed by the research, to metabolise citrate, that apparently requires new genetic information. Being bigger presumably does not require that, else they would have trumpeted that as well.
:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Philip,
:::::With due respect, I see a fairly serious problem with the position you're taking. One of the central arguments against evolution is that mutations ''cannot'' produce new information. Now you're arguing that:

:::::''"According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one."''

:::::The problem is that, if it can "very rarely" happen "by chance," then the premise that mutations do not produce new genetic information is simply false. Instead, we're faced with a debate over ''how frequently'' mutations produce new genetic information. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, I see your point about how the creation of new information through mutation does not necessarily contradict creationism at all. However, it hardly seems like evidence ''for'' it; and extrapolating as you did (trying to claim the timeframe for these bacteria applies equally to the supposed evolution of humans) honestly seems like mostly speculation... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==

IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:

(1) -- whether evolution of citrate-eating (Cit+) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment (I noted that a "goal" does not have to be a sure result), and

(2) -- whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving insufficient glucose supplies in order to cause alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria.

Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions is discussed in the following article on my blog --

[http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/06/co-author-of-e-coli-paper-dodges.html Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions]

More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) --
[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php A new step in evolution]

Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoods[[User:DeanWinter|DeanWinter]] 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:: LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: If you're serious, then please provide some quotes and links to back up your statements. Also contribute to entries rather than violating the [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Reply to Aschlafly's comment of 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT) --
:''"LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. ('''I did not find the answer in the paper.''')"'' (emphasis added) I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment. He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing." And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn.

:''"Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population?"'' As I said, I asked Blount whether favoring Cit+ evolution was the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient supplies of glucose so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation), and he did not answer.

:''"They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved."'' I disagree with you here, for the reasons stated at the end of my first comment in this talk page.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks for your insightful comments and continued efforts to obtain the truth.

:: It has been conceded, finally, by Lenski defenders that the data are not too voluminous to turn over. The underlying data for Figure 1 in the paper for the population expansion during the alleged evolution of the Cit-plus phenotype, for example, could shed light on whether contamination played a role. There is no legitimate reason to withhold the greater resolution from the public, which funded the study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::::People need to stop asking to "turn over the data for public scrutiny" before they've fully read and comprehended the papers and information released to date. E. Coli don't live off of citrate - it's a characteristic of the species - so there was no "goal to promote the percentage that could do it". The fact that a certain population were able to after after thousands of generations of reproduction in a controlled, monitored setting was the key observation, and Lenski's team is still investigating the specifics of when and how that characteristic was enabled. It reflects poorly on an online encyclopedia that the leadership is still questioning whether sufficient data to understand the experiment has been released. The most relevant data from the experiment is the actual bacteria itself, and Lenski has publicly offered to share samples of them with any scientist qualified to handle them, who follows the proper, professional protocols. The Consevapedia community has yet to see a specific, professional response to Professor Lenski's second letter other than a flippant remark about attitude and a continued insistence that data has not been revealed when it clearly has.

::::I'll probably earn another 90/10 block for this, but when you continue to question Lenski's work while admitting that you've only skimmed the related paper, you accomplish nothing but setting a poor example of intellectual honesty for the students who use CP as a trustworthy resource. With all respect, I would ask that instead, you retain the services of a qualified scientist who can engage in a proper review of Lenski's work, whose could then post an ongoing journal of the review process and its findings here on CP. ''That'' would be an appropriate lesson for the students in the proper application of scientific scrutiny to findings that some find questionable. Godspeed. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent (see Lenski's early papers) and it's actually tangential in the overall context of the long-term experiment. Zachary Blount describes the purpose of citrate in the media in his responses at Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php (see replies #115 & #270). Citrate was not added to be a carbon nutrient in the media but as a non-metabolizable chelator (the three carboxyl groups of citrate can bind certain cations in solution). The recipe for the medium was taken from other microbiologists who developed the recipe as a general culture medium back in 1949. Lenski's description of the DM25 media is here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/dm25liquid.html. Glucose was the intended carbon source. If you read the Lenski article cited by Blount (Phenotypic and genomic evolution during a 20,000-generation experiment with the bacterium Escherichia coli. -- available here: https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/, you'll see the setup and reasons for performing the experiments (An earlier article at generation 2000 is here: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1991,%20AmNat,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf). Basically, Lenksi wanted to see how mutations arise and move through populations over time. Even if the media and growth conditions remain pretty consistent over time, the populations continuously shift and change. That is because for a bacterium in the experiment the 'environment' is not just made up of the flask and media but also the *other cells in the flask* with which it must compete. This results in a continuously shifting competitive environment as mutations arise in lineages. Citrate utilization was just one of the many interesting variations acquired over the course of the experiment. Read his other papers for more details and a fuller understanding of the open-ended experiment's scope.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I looked at the blog and found it to be remarkably uninformative. I saw nothing about Blount and Lenski's purpose, nothing that persuasively ruled out non-evolutionary reasons for the citrate-eating bacteria, and nothing to justify the withholding of the data to reveal greater resolution than provided by the figures in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Blogging has limits, which is why I also provided references to Lenski's other papers, including some of those Blount mentioned would be worth reading.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::With regard to 'competent scientists' consider that Behe, in his discussions on this topic has not argued about the 'mechanics' and data presented in Lenski's paper. In his review that can be found on the amazon.com website, he calls Lenksi's work 'fascinating' (and means it in a good way).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

That was strange -- for several hours I was not able to post here, but now I can. Here is my response to Argon's comment of 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Argon said, "The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent"

I didn't ask if Cit+ (citrate-eating E. coli bacteria) evolution was the "main intent" of the experiment -- I only asked if Cit+ evolution was one of the original "goals." There is a misunderstanding about what the word "goal" means -- a goal does not have to be a sure result. In searches for the Lost Dutchman Mine and the ivory-billed woodpecker, finding them are "goals." A "goal" can be one of many goals, a secondary goal, a longshot goal, or whatever. And "intent" is not part of the definition of "goal" -- "intent" generally means what one plans to do, but one cannot plan to achieve an uncertain result. BTW, the term "citrate metabolizers" is misleading because the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate but did not have the ability to pass it through the cell walls.

Zachary Blount's following statement in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog indicates that Cit+ evolution was one of the original goals of the experiment:

''"When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding - I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly)."''

Blount then essentially contradicted his above statement by saying that "the intent of the experiment was never to evolve a Cit+ E. coli variant" (comment #115) and that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" (comment #122).

Also, the following factors suggest that Cit+ evolution was an original goal of the experiment:

(1) Cit+ evolution had been observed once before. Blount reported in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog, ''"there has been only one report of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli in the past century (Hall, B. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 151: 269 ï¿½ 273.)"). ''

(2) I and others assumed that a purpose of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria an insufficient glucose supply so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor Cit+ evolution. I asked Blount if this was in fact a purpose of the glucose-cycling and he did not answer. I asked what the purpose of the glucose-cycling was if favoring Cit+ evolution was not the purpose, and he did not answer.

Was there a research proposal for this whole experiment that started in 1988, and if so, what does that proposal say, if anything, about my questions? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:I may be missing something here, but why is the supposed "goal" of the experiment important? It's the important thing the result?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::British_cons''':''' Suppose a committee is considering this research for an award or a prize and asks the researchers the same questions I asked''':''' (1) Was Cit+ evolution a goal of the experiment? and (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose of the glucose-cycling? Are the researchers going to answer, “No, it was not a goal — it was just an unforeseen accident. We don’t deserve any credit for it.”

::Also, IMO knowing the goals of the experiment and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the experiment. Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as shown above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 12:27, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::There are two possibilities. It was the goal. It was not the goal. The result is that they have produced Cit+. If it was the goal then they have demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate. Well done. If it was not the goal then serendipity has favored them. It is no means unusual in science for unexpected results to further the cause of science. Nobody would reject or question them because they were unexpected. Indeed they are even more welcome if they're unexpected because something new has been learned. So again - well done. I don't see the problem.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::British_cons''':''' As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident? Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as I showed above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions. As I noted above, Cit+ evolution had been observed before, so it seems that repeating it was a likely goal of the experiment. Also, I asked about the purpose(s) of the glucose-cycling and I got no answer to that question. Knowing the goals of the research and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the research.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 14:07, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? You keep repeating this "no straight answers" argument, and people keep pointing out your error, and you've yet to see this argument through to the end anywhere. Conservapedia is already struggling to maintain its current signal-to-noise ratio, please stop forum-shopping here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT) ''<-knows where all the good sales are...''

:: Aziraphale said, ''"Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? "'' I have already spent a helluva lot of time responding to those criticisms on Carl Zimmer's blog and my own blog! (see links in my first comment on this talk page) But I have been kicked off of Carl Zimmer's blog, and my own blog gets only about 50 visits per day. In contrast, this talk page is getting thousands of visits per day, so it is obviously a much better forum for publicizing my views.

::''"You keep repeating this 'no straight answers' argument, and people keep pointing out your error."'' And I keep pointing out the errors in arguments that attempt to point out my alleged error.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 16:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, fair enough. Enjoy your time here. :) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:05, 27 June 2008 (EDT) ''<-o/~know when to hold 'em... o/~''

::::''"Enjoy your time here."'' I intend to. I never before had such a good opportunity to publicize my views. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 02:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It has been brought to my attention that there may be a problem with your question. You wish to know about the "goal" of the experiment. Is that a reasonable way to ask a question of a scientific experiment? Shouldn't the question be "What hypothesis was being tested?"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, it was an oversight. It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page. It has since been linked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive Link?==

Can a link be provided to the archive for this page? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:48, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
:No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Whence Lenski? ==

Lenski's article was published in the PNAS, which is from the National Academy of Sciences. Just [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+academy+of+sciences%22+god Google their name and "god"] and see why they care so much about "proving" evolution: 93% are atheists! Maybe PNAS isn't a professional organization at all, but a fraternity designed to influence American public policy away from Christian principles. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp] {{unsigned|Drochld}}

Talk:Deceit

2008-06-27T17:06:04Z

Feebasfactor: /* Nixon, Libby, and Enron */ hate to ask, but that seems to be the trend

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)
==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief

I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord.
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Umm, right ==

This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".

If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Examples of deceit==

I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it.

::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==

I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Boris Johnson==
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Al Gore ==
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Nixon==
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==M Scott Peck==
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Starlight problem

2008-06-27T01:15:30Z

Feebasfactor: well it's an interesting hypothesis, I guess...

The '''starlight problem''', or '''starlight travel-time problem''' is an apparent problem for the [[Young Earth Creationism|young-Earth creationist]] argument that the universe is only 6,000 years old, in which the age of the universe is based primarily on the [[Genesis]] narrative.
The problem is that if the universe is only 6,000 years old, one has to explain how light from stars more than 6,000 light years from Earth has reached us in the time available.

Despite this frequently being put as an argument against young-Earth creationism, light travel time is also a problem for the [[Big Bang theory]].

Creationists have proposed a number of solutions. The currently-favoured solutions involve time dilation, in which time passed slower on Earth than in other parts of the universe.
[[image:Crab composite cx.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Crab nebula, a supernova remnant]]

== The size of the universe ==

Using parallax calculations, the [[Milky Way]] galaxy alone can be directly observed to have a diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years. Calculations based on the observed brightness of [[supernova]]e of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a star cluster approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the [[Hubble Telescope]] using gravitational lensing.<ref>Amos, 2004</ref>

Although creationists have at times disputed the size of the [[universe]], virtually none propose that it is less than 12,000 light years across.<ref>Fangrad, Richard, 2007.</ref>

== Solutions to the problem ==

Several solutions have been proposed by creationists to explain how a young universe may be reconciled with these observations.

They also point out that there is a logical fallacy in the argument, as the observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of ''distance'', not ''time''. No matter how reasonable, it is a ''deduction'', not an ''observation'', that the starlight from stars millions of light years away would have required millions of years to reach Earth.

=== Light created in transit ===
Some creationists have proposed that the light we see from stars more than 6,000 light years away was not emitted by those stars, but was created 'in transit' by God.
However, most creationists reject this explanation, as the light contains images of events that would therefore never have actually happened, including [[supernova]]e, meaning that we are seeing an image of a star exploding, even though the star never existed.
This would make the creator a deceiver.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.43-46.</ref>

=== Moon-Spencer theory ===
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space", taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe.
However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p. 46.</ref>

=== Decrease in the speed of light ===

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|150px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. <ref>Norman and Setterfield, 1986</ref>
This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.

One criticism of it by anticreationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the [[Fine Structure Constant]] as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed.
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in [[Sydney]], Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>Physical Review Letters 091301, 2001</ref><ref>Sarfati, 2001</ref>
However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are prepared to entertain the idea of a change in the speed of light when it suits them, the size of the change did not provide specific support for Setterfield's idea.

In addition, there were other problems with the theory, leading most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.128</ref>

=== Humphreys' model ===
In 1994 Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a new cosmology<ref>Batten et. al., 2007, p.90, Humphreys, 1994</ref> that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger.
In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a [[gravity well]], meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of [[creation week]] were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe.
According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

=== Time dilation field ===

Dr. [[John Hartnett]], a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative [[time dilation]] model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
According to the Bible, God "stretched out"<ref>For example, {{Bible ref|Isaiah|40:22}}</ref> the heavens (space), and this movement during [[creation week]] caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[Special Theory of Relativity]], adding to the time dilation caused by [[gravity]], per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's [[General Theory of Relativity]].<ref>Hartnett, 2003, Hartnett 2007</ref>

==Starlight Problem for the Big Bang Theory==

Despite the use of the Starlight Problem in arguing against young-Earth creationism, the [[Big Bang theory]] has its own light travel problem, known as the horizon problem.

The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the [[Cosmic Microwave Background]] (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform<ref name="Lisle">Lisle, 2003</ref> (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background]</ref>).
{{QuoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="Lisle" />}}

A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but ''after'' different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature.
However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions have their own problems.<ref name="Lisle" />

== Bibliography ==
* [http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1 Inconstant constant?] ''Physical Review Letters 091301'' (9th August 2001)</ref>
* Amos, Jonathan, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3490657.stm Hubble sees 'most distant object'], BBC News, 15th February, 2004.
* Batten, Don, Catchpoole, David, Sarfati, Jonathan, Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.
* Fangrad, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5425 The media spin on the creationists] (Creation Ministries International), 14th November, 2007.
* Hartnett, John C., A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/ HTML] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf PDF]
* Hartnett, John, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007 ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7
* Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, ISBN 0-89051-202-7.
* Laird, Jeff, [http://swordofthemind.blogspot.com/2008/05/starlight-time-and-new-physics-review.html "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)], Gladio Mentis, 26th May, 2008.
* Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.
* Norman, T.G. and Setterfield, B., ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'', SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430 Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?] 22nd August, 2001 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], 9th August 2002 (Creation Ministries International).

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Pornography

2008-06-26T21:04:01Z

Feebasfactor: Undo revision 482353 by Bugler (Talk) ...ok then? does that mean it's alright...?

* There is a draft of a proposed new version [[/draft|here]].

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Might that comment be intended to refer to the Song of Solomon? - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of p.enises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

: I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the [[D.H.Lawrence]] novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover''. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like ''American Psycho'' a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''{{fact}}'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] I think if you look at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It still lacks a paragraph about the psychology/sociology behind pornography, but, it's definitely a lot better than the current version.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I have no idea where to start on that paragraph as it stands the draft is touching the far edges of what I feel comfortable writing on (any more and I worry a bad source could steer me wrong). But if you point me to a good source I’ll work on it, or you could add it yourself – feel free to treat the draft like the article, improve it as you can.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

shuld be in the Sexual sins catagory--[[User:Bloodsliver|duo]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Needs Citations ==

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs deletion ==

Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:A draft (which I think is much better) is being worked on. See somewhere above for a link to said draft. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I came to this page to try to add a UK context but see that it uneditable. This is the sort of thing I was going to add.

"In the UK pornography continues to be used by the mass circulation tabloids to bolster sales. Since the 1970's the UK 'red-top' tabloids, in particular the News International Corp owned 'Sun' and the 'Daily Star' have used images of naked or semi-naked women to attract a readership of B2,C,D males. They then fill other pages in the paper with biased articles pushing their political viewpoint in an attempt to control clearly influencible minds. The Sun in particular influenced the result of the 1992 General election with their pornography-ridden viewpoint that they claimed to have won the election.

Other tabloids such as the 'Daily Sport' and the 'Daily Express' are owned by David Sullivan and Richard Desmond, both of whom made their fortunes in pornography before moving into newspapers."

Can this be added please. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 17:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Please add it to the draft at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] . The draft is editable and the better it is the more likely we are to get it to replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've done that now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
: What does "B2,C,D" mean? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It a form a categorization of people by social position and available income. A's are higher earner or those with wealth, B's not quite so much, B2,C & D are the classifications for either unskilled manual labour, the unemployed or the underclass. In the US this equates to blue collar etc. These were the groups considered most easily influenced by pornography and propaganda. Without their media-led political bias in the 1980's the political landscape of Britain would have been very different. That's why I added my bit in the Social Effects of Pornography section in the new draft. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Addiction ==

Pornography can be addictive, according to some source, especially ones involving violence. This fact should be added onto the article. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 22:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal wants to help! ==

Okay, I am liberal. I admit it. I accept that conservatives and/or Christians do not like pornography, etc. and I respect your decisions. My ex-boyfriend is a Christian and didn't view porn and was waiting until marriage, etc. so I understand how people like you guys think (we're still friends). As much as I'd love to edit articles like this one, the abortion one, and the cannabis one for content, I understand that this is a conservative website and I would gladly respect that and maintain your right-winged perspectives. I am mainly on this site because I want to broaden my horizons and see what the other side of the arguments are. I'm curious about the right-winged perspective, and even though I don't agree, I respect it and want to understand it.

Now, here's my problem with conservapedia. It's not that this is conservative. You guys have every right to post this conservatively biased stuff because you're up front about it and say you're conservative and don't try to hide it. You display it proudly. More power to you. My problem is that a lot of these entries use vague words like "very bad" or, in the case of this porn article, you say that porn "has an effect." That is quite vague. How is it bad? What are the effects? What is "very" bad? Furthermore, many sentences in this site are just poorly written, grammatically speaking, and it is difficult to read. If you want respect from the liberal world, at least take the time to sound intelligent, back up everything with lots and lots of sources, use good grammar and strong vocabulary. "Very bad" is not a strong choice of words. "Harmful" might be. Then again, once you say "harmful," you'll have to say WHY it's harmful. In the sentence "everything is a perversion of one sort of another" ... well, "of" should be "or." I recognize this is a common typo, but I would love to edit it and make this site better! There's hundreds of entries where it is just poorly written and I'd love to edit it JUST FOR FLUIDITY. In other words, so it's more readable, free from typos and other errors, etc. Also, there are some things which are obviously biased, but I don't think has anything to do with being conservative or liberal, such as the use of "he" in this article. Anyone, male or female, can be desensitized to sex via porn, and as a female who happens to enjoy porn, I think that this article should recognize that people of both genders view porn, and that sex is not as stereotypically male as many people would like you to believe. After all, it takes two...

I've worked with a number of newspapers and I study linguistics. I've won numerous awards for my writing and read countless books on how to persuade people with words and make the most use out of every word. I regularly edit my peer's essays and I do not change their opinions, but make their opinions come across as stronger through a better method of writing. I would love to do this for this website, but unfortunately I am blocked from editing most articles because they are controversial and have been locked. I could probably find other examples of unclear sentences, but I can't remember which articles I have looked at.

Keep up your beliefs. It takes all kinds to make up this world, and we need both conservative and liberal viewpoints. I'd love to help you guys, but you consistently block me. Oh well. Your loss.

Peace.

-Neko1337

:I don't think the number of locked articles are as bad as you seem to think. Surely there are ''some'' that you'd be interested in editing that are not locked. And once the administrators see that you are doing a good job, they might even be willing to unlock articles for you to tidy up.
:I suspect that the original author(s) use male pronouns in a generic way, not specifically indicating males.
:I improved the article a little bit in line with your comments (but I agree it could do with more).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Pornography consumers are overwhelmingly male (by a nearly 3:1 margin), so the only substantive point made by "Neko" above is not persuasive.[http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't know the actual figures, but yes, I had meant to mention something along those lines also. Nevertheless, I gather (it's just an impression) that pornography use by females is on the increase. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I read somewhere (I actually think it was a claim by Pat Robertson, so take it with a grain of salt) that women tend more to read erotic literature.

In any event, I think it's very interesting to present this from both a Christian and an Islamic perspective, as Ed has done here. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 11:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Why porn is actually bad ==
Should we sight more sources for why pornography is bad...maybe we should offer counterpoints to why pornography is bad, then shown arguements against those to make our case stronger. {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}

==Him Vs Her and Person==
Why are all the references to males?
"Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different '''women'''''(my girl isn't interested in women)''; true eros says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person"

"Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has an effect. It desensitizes a person, makes '''him''' more withdrawn, and makes '''him''' view '''others''' ''(and other males?)'' like objects rather than the people they are."

I wanted my girlfriend to look at this page because she does use porn quite regularly much to my disappointment. Its something we are trying to deal with and work through, but the inherit bias toward males in the article has turned her attention to topics of feminism and such and the original point of asking her to read this as been lost on her. --[[User:DjWizard|DjWizard]] 20:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get your point - or if I do, I disagree with it. We assume a porn user is a man, the same way we assume a nurse is a woman. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
::And both assumptions would be invalid some of the time. My general answer is that "male" terms are actually generic terms (as "man" is a reference to a member of "mankind"), although some specific instances might bear being reworded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't see oyur problem with you Girlfriend looking at porn, I mean, is it causing any actual relationship problems? {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}
:You don't see a problem with portraying someone in a degrading manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

==Religious perspectives==

Perhaps it's time to re-visit this issue. Much as it is a touchy subject, it does need to be addressed. A well-balanced and scholarly article would explain why it's bad, and not (as "Neko" suggested) merely make general assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography actually lowers rape rate ==

I was looking at statistics for rape rate in Japan, and It would seem that pornography and rape are inversely related. As porn sales go up, rape rates go down. Should we include this in the article? {{unsigned|Bias}}

: "It would seem"—seems rather uncertain to me. Is the source on-line? If so, post it here (on this talk page) and we can look into it further.

No, sorry, it's not online. If you would like, look in to it. [[User:Bias|Bias]] 22:19, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I do remember seeing an article that pointed out that pornography has become much more widely available in recent years, because of the Internet, and in that same time, the rate for rapes in the U.S. has gone down, although the article pointed out that law enforcement procedures had improved over that time too. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the article or where I saw it, but it's an aspect of the issue that's worth investigating.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html [[User:Walkie|Walkie]] 16:26, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Useful external link==
[http://www.xxxchurch.com The #1 Christian Porn site] - includes accountability software, forums for couples, men, women, and teens... and useful articles. Anti-porn merchandise too! xD [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-21T19:24:48Z

Feebasfactor: /* He's Gay Too */ agree, similar to muslim issue (only a suggestion though)

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

==Religious Views==
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatment. That's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.

ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent? Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff? [[User:Archer070]]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer. How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of [[professor]] to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.

The current definition stands as ''"based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university"''. I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
: It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth. {{unsigned|Impm}}

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
:::#He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
:::#He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)

:::It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47. It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,

JMarks.

bravo

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== More on changing his name ==

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).

: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops". I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: What church are you referring to? And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention? If the former, can you point me to the requirement? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize [[baptism]] require a Christian name for it. For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism. I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the ''truth'' here. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, it goes like this: ''Moderate'' Christians and Muslims don't kill people. ''Radical'' Christians and Muslims do kill people. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former. But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these ''will'' affect decisions that he will make. So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::::"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The discussion was clearly about people doing it ''because they were Christian'' or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I'm suffering from truth bias. The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule. Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: According to the [http://www.kukluxklan.bz/faq.html KKK FAQ] (on requirements to join):
:::::::#You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
:::::::#You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
:::::::It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well. I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves. In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality. Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: Spot on, Learn together. Anybody can ''call themselves'' "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. The KKK doesn't qualify. The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community. In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population. If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people ''calling themselves'' "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names ==

[http://www.hesavedme.com/story.htm Hussain Andaryas] kept his semitic name, as did [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1918728/The-Rt-Rev-Hassan-Dehqani-Tafti.html the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CExvHJxJnY this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed")], and [http://www.farsinet.com/dibaj/ the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Islam==
Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==He's Gay Too==

Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that [http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/i-had-sex-with-obama/2008/06/19/1213770824274.html he's gay] as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-gurvitz/rnc-obama-busted-in-gay_b_87221.html] [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation. Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"? I'm glad you agree. So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, '''NOT''' about his Christianity. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I know that your statement was about homosexuality. But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a ''principle'', so I merely applied ''your <s>principal</s>principle'' to a different case. Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::That's ''your conversation'' and ''your principle''. Deal with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Apart from the typo, that was ''your'' principle (although I basically agree with it). You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing. I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced". Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate? Absolutely not. The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president. They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights. The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay". I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay. It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Read the ''first'' article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The Huffington Post was a piece of satire! The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke. I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story. Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Like the problem of him quite possibly being Muslim or strongly influenced by Islam? That would certainly be an actual problem - hence its inclusion in this article. Do you not think Obama being gay would be an actual problem as well, and lead to a strong pro-homosexuality bias? Anyway, I basically agree with StatsMsn on this matter - and as with the Muslim issue, tthere are sources, and we're not making statements, only relaying the words of others on this controversy. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Unlock For Update==
In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. ''"Taxes of those earning... for ten years."''

''Add-'' Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008</ref>--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Religious affiliations==

These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Examples of "non-charisma" ==

I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches

== Speculation vs Fact ==

I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse). For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article? It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact. Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.

I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here. Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections 
"president of the United States" - Capitalization 
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President" 
"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book <s>and</s> ''or'' community organizing."--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Integral

2008-06-21T00:49:17Z

Feebasfactor: welcome, and good luck with your math edits

An '''integral''' is a mathematical construction used in [[Calculus]] to represent the area of a region in a plane. Integrals use the following notation:

<math>\int_a^b f(x)dx</math>

where ''a'' and ''b'' represent the lower and upper bounds of the interval being integrated over, ''f(x)'' represents the function being integrated (the '''integrand'''), and ''dx'' represents a dummy variable given various definitions, depending on the context of the integral. Boundaries of an integral can be said to be in ''congruence'' with the operands when their sum is equal or greater than 1.

There are two types of integrals. Definite integrals are integrals that are evaluated over limits of integration. Indefinite integrals are not evaluated over limits of integration. Evaluating an indefinite integral yields the antiderivative of the integrand plus a constant of integration.

Integration has many physical applications. The indefinite integral of a time function of acceleration with respect to time gives the velocity function defined to within a constant, while the definite integral of a time function with respect to time gives the change in velocity between the upper and lower limits of integration. Likewise, the indefinite integral of a time function of velocity with respect to time gives the position function defined to within a constant, and the definite integral of this velocity function will give the change in position between the two limits of integration.

Integration is the inverse function of [[derivative|derivation]], and is related to it by the [[Fundamental Theorem of Calculus]].

==Properties of intergrals==

Intergation has the following properties,

*<math>\int_{a}^{b}(f(x)+g(x))dx=\int_{a}^{b}f(x)dx+\int_{a}^{b}g(x)dx</math>

*<math>\int_{a}^{b}cf(x)dx=c\int_{a}^{b}f(x)dx</math>

*<math>\int_{a}^{a}f(x)dx=0</math>

*<math>\int_{a}^{b}f(x)dx=\int_{a}^{c}f(x)dx+\int_{c}^{b}f(x)dx</math>, <math>c\in(a,b)</math>

*<math>\int_{a}^{b}f(x)dx=-\int_{b}^{a}f(x)dx</math>

==Anti-derivative==
Most students struggle with the important difference between the anti-derivative and integration. The anti-derivative of a function <math>f(x)</math> is the function <math>g(x)</math> such that,

<math>\frac{d}{dx}g(x)=f(x)</math>

The integral of a function can be evaluated using its antiderivative,

<math>\int_a^b f(x)dx=g(b)-g(a)</math>

<math>\int^\infty_{-\infty} f(x)=g(x)+C</math>

In the second case C is the constant of integration. As this is very common <math>\infty</math> and <math>-\infty</math> are usually excluded. This works for the kind of functions incountered in late high school and early university mathematics it is however an incomplete method. For example <math>e^{x^{2}}</math> has no anti-derivative.

==Riemann intergral==
As a geometric interpretation of the integral of the [[area]] of a curve, the Riemann integral consists of dividing the area under the curve of the function into rectangles. The [[domain]] of the function is partioned into N segments of width <math>\frac{b-a}{N}</math>. The height of the segment is dependent on which side of the rectangle is taken. The lower sum takes the lower side of the rectangle, the upper sum the higher side of the rectangle. In the [[limit]] of <math>N\rightarrow\infty</math> these two sums become the integral. If they approach the same value then the integral exists, otherwise it is undefined.

==Lebesgue Intergral==
The Lebesgue intergral is usually introduced in late university or early postgraduate mathematics. It is naively described as rotating the Reimann intergral, in that it is the range instead of the domain that is partioned. An understanding of [[measure theory]] is required to understand this techniques.

==See Also==
*[[Methods of integration]]
===External Links===
[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integral.html Integrals - Wolfram MathWorld]

[[Category:Calculus]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Classroom prayer

2008-06-09T06:00:08Z

Feebasfactor: could we have... both?

== Liberal bias? ==

Since when is ''describing'' the topic "liberal bias". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::Oh... Phillip. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.
:I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Classroom_prayer&oldid=464012 collaborative, previous version] was liberally biased, specifically?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how ''classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution and liberalism

2008-05-26T21:29:47Z

Feebasfactor: meh, no point

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-25T22:32:36Z

Feebasfactor: /* Rob Knox */ it's no one's fault! but it need's to be changed...

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-25T22:32:08Z

Feebasfactor: /* Rob Knox */ here's the subtitle... this boy demonstrated exemplary bravery and self-sacrifice, strong conservative values even

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-25T22:30:00Z

Feebasfactor: /* Rob Knox */ I agree with Tom Moore... this is a misunderstanding

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution and liberalism

2008-05-25T22:20:56Z

Feebasfactor: well... I was just late then, wasn't I?

This should probably go on the [[evolution]] page, not given a new article of its own. It's not a topic unto itself, it's a statistic about an issue, and so it should be on that issue's page.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:This source says nothing about 36% of liberals believing in evolution. All it says is that 64% of conservatives do not believe in evolution. That would mean that 36% of conservatives believe in evolution, and would be contrary to what you are trying to imply. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::I don't quite understand the statistics of the article as it is currently phrased... does this mean that 64% (a majority) of Americans who believe the theory of evolution is valid are conservative, or at least independant? Or perhaps I misread it/misunderstood the point... Conservative? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Wait, I just read Dan's post... perhaps there's just been some slight mistake with the numbers. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:18, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Nevermind, it's been fixed, thanks. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:20, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution and liberalism

2008-05-25T22:18:33Z

Feebasfactor: just read Dan's post

Talk:Evolution and liberalism

2008-05-25T22:17:40Z

Feebasfactor: a little confused about the stats

User talk:Ikrase

2008-05-18T19:08:46Z

Feebasfactor: and even then I doubt they'd be welcome

{{Welcome|sig= [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:43, 18 May 2008 (EDT)}}

Those edits won't stand a chance without references/sources you know... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:08, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

User talk:ELeger

2008-05-18T19:05:39Z

Feebasfactor: just though I'd add a "welcome" to your talk page... I think you'll be considered a very welcome editor to this site :)

I've unprotected [[Barack Obama]] for you to edit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

{{welcome}}

Liberal gullibility

2008-05-16T04:27:39Z

Feebasfactor: fix link to explanatory articles

'''Liberal gullibility''' is the tendency of some people to easily believe false [[liberal]] claims. [[Michael Moore]] makes a fortune from liberal gullibility and [[Al Gore]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] on the back of it.

Examples of liberal gullibility include beliefs such as:

* Taking away [[gun]]s will prevent gun crime. (Unfortunately, if good people get rid of their guns, criminals will not. In the [[Luby's massacre]] in Killeen, Texas, people were essentially sitting ducks which resulted in the deaths of 24 people and 20 people being injured. One of the survivors, Suzanna Hupp, said she was unable to stop the incident because Texas at the time did not allow people to carry concealed weapons. She later became a politician and pushed for legislation to allow Texans to carry a concealed weapon to help prevent/limit massacres like this from happening in Texas again).
* Human beings contribute to [[global warming]]. (This has been disputed by a number of scientists including Nobel prize winners).
* Providing government health care for all will reduce illness. (Government provided healthcare would probably result in people going to the hospital more frequently than necessary, causing system overload - this happened in Massachusetts after a similar policy was enacted there. It may also cause a decrease in the number of doctors interested in becoming specialty doctors).
* Government programs reduce poverty. (The problem with such policies is that they create dependence and since poorer people have more children then the rich it only worsens the problem).
* The [[Piltdown Man]] was the missing link, and so was the [[Nebraska Man]]. ([[Liberals]] believed and taught these hoaxes for decades in the 20th century).
* Circular reasoning "proves" something. (For example, assuming an element had a half-life of 700 million years in order to "prove" that the universe is older than 700 million years).
*Legalizing drugs will kill the black market in drugs. (Whereas the black market will simply find a new market).
*Remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] are somehow the result of [[magnetism]].<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13811-birds-can-see-the-earth</ref>
*Believing that they have seen [[UFO]]s representing intelligent life from outer space.<ref>[[Liberal]] President [[Jimmy Carter]] is the only president to have formally reported seeing a [[UFO]]. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Jimmy_Carter#UFO_Sighting]</ref>
*Believing that an absence of direct [[evidence]] is necessarily an evidence of absence (for example, the apparent lack of [[WMD#Saddam%20Hussein%20and%20WMD|WMD's in Iraq]], despite evidence of a program in place, and the supposed extinction of [[dinosaur]]s despite [[Dinosaur#Dinosaur-like_creatures_in_history_and_modern_sightings|modern sightings]]).<ref>See "[[out of sight out of mind‎]]".</ref>
(add more)

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:psychology]]
[[category:politics]]

Liberal gullibility

2008-05-16T04:23:19Z

Feebasfactor: another example, with a link to another article

'''Liberal gullibility''' is the tendency of some people to easily believe false [[liberal]] claims. [[Michael Moore]] makes a fortune from liberal gullibility and [[Al Gore]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] on the back of it.

Examples of liberal gullibility include beliefs such as:

* Taking away [[gun]]s will prevent gun crime. (Unfortunately, if good people get rid of their guns, criminals will not. In the [[Luby's massacre]] in Killeen, Texas, people were essentially sitting ducks which resulted in the deaths of 24 people and 20 people being injured. One of the survivors, Suzanna Hupp, said she was unable to stop the incident because Texas at the time did not allow people to carry concealed weapons. She later became a politician and pushed for legislation to allow Texans to carry a concealed weapon to help prevent/limit massacres like this from happening in Texas again).
* Human beings contribute to [[global warming]]. (This has been disputed by a number of scientists including Nobel prize winners).
* Providing government health care for all will reduce illness. (Government provided healthcare would probably result in people going to the hospital more frequently than necessary, causing system overload - this happened in Massachusetts after a similar policy was enacted there. It may also cause a decrease in the number of doctors interested in becoming specialty doctors).
* Government programs reduce poverty. (The problem with such policies is that they create dependence and since poorer people have more children then the rich it only worsens the problem).
* The [[Piltdown Man]] was the missing link, and so was the [[Nebraska Man]]. ([[Liberals]] believed and taught these hoaxes for decades in the 20th century).
* Circular reasoning "proves" something. (For example, assuming an element had a half-life of 700 million years in order to "prove" that the universe is older than 700 million years).
*Legalizing drugs will kill the black market in drugs. (Whereas the black market will simply find a new market).
*Remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] are somehow the result of [[magnetism]].<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13811-birds-can-see-the-earth</ref>
*Believing that they have seen [[UFO]]s representing intelligent life from outer space.<ref>[[Liberal]] President [[Jimmy Carter]] is the only president to have formally reported seeing a [[UFO]]. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Jimmy_Carter#UFO_Sighting]</ref>
*Believing that an absence of direct [[evidence]] is necessarily an evidence of absence (for example, the lack of [[WMD]]'s in [[Iraq]], despite evidence of a program in place, and the supposed extinction of [[dinosaur]]s despite [[Dinosaur#Dinosaur-like_creatures_in_history_and_modern_sightings|modern sitings]]) - see [[out of site, out of mind]].
(add more)

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:psychology]]
[[category:politics]]

Talk:Ann Coulter

2008-05-15T03:12:38Z

Feebasfactor: /* Feigning offence */ clarifying

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of [[meme]]s, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:Cite an instance where that's not true. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Here's the point about [[deceit]]: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
:Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
*Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
:The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."

:To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/09/16/jobless_claims_soar_by_71000/]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

== silly Coulter ==
Silly Coulter, Adams apples are for men! [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

== Coulter & Sarcasm ==

I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value.

Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.

:In that spirit, let me emphasize that ''only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence''! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

::I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-doesn't like lib gasbags either....''
:::This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~''
::::On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, applaud away. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<--
When the political consulting team of [[James Carville]], [[Larry Flynt]], and [[Paul Begala]] cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like [[Jim Jeffords]] and [[Larry Craig]], is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This Coulterism [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. [[institutional racial hoaxism]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Legal career ==

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

==M. Stanton Evans==
Good quote from Coulter on [[M. Stanton Evans]] new book, "the greatest book since the Bible, M. Stanton Evans' ''Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies''." [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824] We just need a place to put it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Hatred ==

Im sorry but this woman preaches hatred and gives conservative a bad name entirely, she called Jews imperfect christians for gods sake, that is a hateful comment, she is a bigot, she is too far to the right, and when you go to far to the right you become the opposite of a communist... a Nazi. She would quite happily send us back 70 years. The article doesn`t reflect the fact that even moderate conservatives find her offensive, and conservatives should not condon her actions. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 10:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:And the hate from the liberals that she preaches against on TV, radio, and her books doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: The article quotes those comments; what more do you want? The reader can decide whether they are hateful or not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)

And if you can't decide, it's not a problem; the article tells you right from the start:

''Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics and liberals in general, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that liberals can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. [2] [3]''

*Liberals = intolerant attacks
*Ann Coulter = exposure of hypocrisy, occasional twitting

Nice to have things made simple! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

is that ment to be a joke, --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

: That's "meant", not "ment". More importantly, please open your mind a bit for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Open minds are great, and Ann Coulter probably does make a lot of very good points. But you can be simultaneously valid and offensive, and the article should not attempt to dismiss this by putting such a spin on her "controversy" in the very second paragraph. As mentionned before, the quotes speak for themselves, so let the readers decide. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::I hate people who won't fix things themselves => shorthand for '''I hate it when people ...''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::Um... Thanks for unlocking the article...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

::::: My Mind is open about this, and I still see a hate monger, Mr. Schlafay. Evidence to the point: [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml Christian Crusading], [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/national/main3358373.shtml?source=mostpop_story Anti-Semitic statements], and [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092801.asp Anti-Islamic sentiments]. My evidence towards the theory that Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and a Religious Facist is on the table. You may now post a counter argument. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 18:57 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

:::::: The article has quotes from her. The reader can form his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)

== Isn't Coulter pro-choice? ==

I thought Ann Coulter was pro-choice. Someone should look into this... -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 12:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== First "Reference" ==

The first reference, "U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals," has no source. Unless there's a source or a specific objection, I think this reference should be deleted. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:I added the refs [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::Perhaps I misunderstood the references---but where does he state that she's one of America's top public intellectuals? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::Having read the reference again, I think a couple improvements could be made. First, the reference should have something to do with the corresponding passage. The passage talks about her books, but the reference makes a claim about being called a top intellectual. That claim can be included in the main article someplace, but doesn't have relevance as a reference to her writings. Second, the reference, when placed in the article, should point to his book on the subject, rather than the appendix to the book. The reference doesn't make the fact any clearer. Finally, having read a summation of the book from Publisher's Weekly, it seems Posner was writing that the intellectuals of today have diminished from the intellectuals of the past. He then uses web hits as a qualification for intellectualism. That seems a weak criteria.
:::Overall, I think this reference should just be removed, as it doesn't enhance but instead detracts from the article. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::Valid points. The statement and references now stand alone and are not linked to her books. The statement now ''adds'' to the article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the update. I still question whether he considers her one of America's top public intellectuals, or whether she's just another example of an American public intellectual, but w/o reading the book it's hard to know. But thank you for the updated writing! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Opinion ==

The following paragraph needs some work:
:<nowiki>Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by critics and liberals, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that [[liberal]]s can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>
I love Coulter's writing, but this paragraph includes a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I wanted to rewrite it, but I wasn't really sure how without taking out most of the assertions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:<nowiki>As an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and sometimes considered "offensive" <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>

:How's that, HelpJazz? Any better? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:25, 12 February 2008 (EST==

::Wow, I forgot about this post, heh. Yes, Feebas, I think that's much better, and I think it still gets the same message across without the editorializing. Thanks! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)

==Feigning offence==
What is feign offence Andy? you mean that people are not actually offended?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:58, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, this is pathetic. Her critics are critics because they are actually offended. What makes you think they feign it? I am going to revert if you cant give a reason
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:And I will throw you off this website if you even dare to. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:44, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:The child is yourself, and we've had enough of your tantrums and your bad remarks directed against the sysops and Aschlafly here. If you want to contribute, fine; but your bad attitude is over with. If not, leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:47, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I am not the one saying "I dare you! Then I'll show you!" Secondly, I dont give a sweet damn what Coutler says however she does offend and noone "feigns it" and you should back this up if this is actually meant to be "trustworthy"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:With respect, he has raised an important point. I believe that at least some of Coulter's critics have been offended by her comments, particular those who they are directed at. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:16, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: It's easy to see why Coulter's critics would feign offense, in their attempt to score political points. It's not so easy to see why they would be genuinely offended. Are they equally offended by similar jokes/comments by [[liberals]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Hm. AdenJ is currently... "away", but I just saw this in the Recent Changes. I can understand why liberals would be genuinely offended by her remarks:
:::*"Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
:::**Right. This of course does not offend liberals in the slightest...
:::*"Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."
:::**See above; I guess no liberal will be offended by that. No sir...
:::*"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned."
:::**Of course, women will only ''feign'' being offended by this. They know that they are incapable of understanding how money is earned! Sure!
:::And how about some of her book titles?
:::*Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2003)
:::*Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2004)
:::*How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2005)
:::*If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans (2007)
:::Are you seriously claiming that not one of these lines is going to genuinely offend anybody? If anybody said that conservatives are lying traitors who are driven by Satan and should not be allowed to vote because they're all anti-American idiots, I'm very sure that conservatives would be offended. Maybe not you, but others will be. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:39, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Huh. I... see. Thanks for clarifying this quite... unique view of liberals. [frowns] --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ??? Your statement is incoherent. Are pretending that [[liberals]] don't deny they are [[liberals]]? Check out the comments of [[Hillary Clinton]] and scores of posters here, perhaps including yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::??? Are you saying that I'm a liberal? What do you base this on? Your [[political identification bias]], maybe? I certainly didn't give you any hint of my political affiliation other than disagreeing with you. Classic case, I would say.
:::::::It's typical conservative style to label any posting as "incoherent", and if there was such an article here, I would add it as the new number 1 entry. ;)
:::::::If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words and simply cite a webcomic: "Dude, see this huge sweat-drop? It means I'm totally grossed out." - Oh, and don't pretend to be offended by this post. I know you'd just be feigning it to score points in this discussion, just like you know that no liberal is genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks.
:::::::But hey, your site, your wikiality. If you want to claim that no liberal is offended by being called a lying traitor, then you can obviously do so. [shrug] I at first assumed that this was some odd misunderstanding, but your post clarified the position to the degree that I know that my best move is to disengage. Which I tried to do, before you called my post "incoherent". Let's hope that this second attempt will be more fruitful. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:58, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

* [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]: Comments like ''If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words'' are out of place here. Kindly confine your comments to discussion of how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:06, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::So my comparably tame remark is a personal remark, but nobody will be genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks? What if I claimed that you and Aschlafly are only feigning it to silence me? How would you prove me wrong?
::Also, please note that I only made that remark after Aschlafly labeled my post "incoherent", which I found quite insulting. Or how about Aschlafly implicitly labeling me as a liberal, based on nothing other than him disagreeing with me? I accept your warning (and I already said that I was retreating and disengaging, once implicitly and once explicitly), but I must protest against the fact that ''only I'' receive one. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 11:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I had written an earlier version which I though was fairly neutral (see a section above, HelpJazz condoned it). But in light of the view that... "''No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.''" ...I think I'll just step away. I... don't understand how it can be claimed that one would not be offended by such comments as JBrown listed, I certainly would be (perhaps, I have a slightly different interpretation of "offense"?). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: Some liberals claim they are offended by a prayer that simply thanks God. Does you think that really offends them? I don't. Claiming offense is an effective way to demand censorship, or try to ostracize someone and drive her off television. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::Well, no, I don't think so either. A prayer thanking God does not insult, criticize or even address the "offended" party, so I think you're quite right when you say liberals are feigning offense in such a case. However, the comments listed above directly attack liberals, so I would not be surprised if there was in fact some genuine offense taken. Wouldn't you be at all offended if someone said such things about you? ''"traitors or idiots", "lie constantly", "motivated by Stalin"...'' If not, I'll assume that I am understanding "offense" differently.

::Now I'm not saying she's wrong, or that she should have to censor herself at all, but is it really that unbelievable that someone could be offended by such comments? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2008-05-15T03:11:58Z

Feebasfactor: /* Feigning offence */ yep, I agree with that example, and I'm not saying she's wrong, but... offense at these comments completely feigned?

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of [[meme]]s, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:Cite an instance where that's not true. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Here's the point about [[deceit]]: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
:Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
*Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
:The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."

:To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/09/16/jobless_claims_soar_by_71000/]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

== silly Coulter ==
Silly Coulter, Adams apples are for men! [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

== Coulter & Sarcasm ==

I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value.

Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.

:In that spirit, let me emphasize that ''only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence''! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

::I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-doesn't like lib gasbags either....''
:::This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~''
::::On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, applaud away. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<--
When the political consulting team of [[James Carville]], [[Larry Flynt]], and [[Paul Begala]] cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like [[Jim Jeffords]] and [[Larry Craig]], is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This Coulterism [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. [[institutional racial hoaxism]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Legal career ==

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

==M. Stanton Evans==
Good quote from Coulter on [[M. Stanton Evans]] new book, "the greatest book since the Bible, M. Stanton Evans' ''Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies''." [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824] We just need a place to put it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Hatred ==

Im sorry but this woman preaches hatred and gives conservative a bad name entirely, she called Jews imperfect christians for gods sake, that is a hateful comment, she is a bigot, she is too far to the right, and when you go to far to the right you become the opposite of a communist... a Nazi. She would quite happily send us back 70 years. The article doesn`t reflect the fact that even moderate conservatives find her offensive, and conservatives should not condon her actions. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 10:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:And the hate from the liberals that she preaches against on TV, radio, and her books doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: The article quotes those comments; what more do you want? The reader can decide whether they are hateful or not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)

And if you can't decide, it's not a problem; the article tells you right from the start:

''Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics and liberals in general, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that liberals can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. [2] [3]''

*Liberals = intolerant attacks
*Ann Coulter = exposure of hypocrisy, occasional twitting

Nice to have things made simple! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

is that ment to be a joke, --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

: That's "meant", not "ment". More importantly, please open your mind a bit for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Open minds are great, and Ann Coulter probably does make a lot of very good points. But you can be simultaneously valid and offensive, and the article should not attempt to dismiss this by putting such a spin on her "controversy" in the very second paragraph. As mentionned before, the quotes speak for themselves, so let the readers decide. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::I hate people who won't fix things themselves => shorthand for '''I hate it when people ...''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::Um... Thanks for unlocking the article...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

::::: My Mind is open about this, and I still see a hate monger, Mr. Schlafay. Evidence to the point: [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml Christian Crusading], [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/national/main3358373.shtml?source=mostpop_story Anti-Semitic statements], and [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092801.asp Anti-Islamic sentiments]. My evidence towards the theory that Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and a Religious Facist is on the table. You may now post a counter argument. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 18:57 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

:::::: The article has quotes from her. The reader can form his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)

== Isn't Coulter pro-choice? ==

I thought Ann Coulter was pro-choice. Someone should look into this... -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 12:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== First "Reference" ==

The first reference, "U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals," has no source. Unless there's a source or a specific objection, I think this reference should be deleted. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:I added the refs [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::Perhaps I misunderstood the references---but where does he state that she's one of America's top public intellectuals? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::Having read the reference again, I think a couple improvements could be made. First, the reference should have something to do with the corresponding passage. The passage talks about her books, but the reference makes a claim about being called a top intellectual. That claim can be included in the main article someplace, but doesn't have relevance as a reference to her writings. Second, the reference, when placed in the article, should point to his book on the subject, rather than the appendix to the book. The reference doesn't make the fact any clearer. Finally, having read a summation of the book from Publisher's Weekly, it seems Posner was writing that the intellectuals of today have diminished from the intellectuals of the past. He then uses web hits as a qualification for intellectualism. That seems a weak criteria.
:::Overall, I think this reference should just be removed, as it doesn't enhance but instead detracts from the article. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::Valid points. The statement and references now stand alone and are not linked to her books. The statement now ''adds'' to the article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the update. I still question whether he considers her one of America's top public intellectuals, or whether she's just another example of an American public intellectual, but w/o reading the book it's hard to know. But thank you for the updated writing! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Opinion ==

The following paragraph needs some work:
:<nowiki>Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by critics and liberals, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that [[liberal]]s can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>
I love Coulter's writing, but this paragraph includes a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I wanted to rewrite it, but I wasn't really sure how without taking out most of the assertions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:<nowiki>As an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and sometimes considered "offensive" <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>

:How's that, HelpJazz? Any better? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:25, 12 February 2008 (EST==

::Wow, I forgot about this post, heh. Yes, Feebas, I think that's much better, and I think it still gets the same message across without the editorializing. Thanks! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)

==Feigning offence==
What is feign offence Andy? you mean that people are not actually offended?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:58, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, this is pathetic. Her critics are critics because they are actually offended. What makes you think they feign it? I am going to revert if you cant give a reason
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:And I will throw you off this website if you even dare to. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:44, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:The child is yourself, and we've had enough of your tantrums and your bad remarks directed against the sysops and Aschlafly here. If you want to contribute, fine; but your bad attitude is over with. If not, leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:47, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I am not the one saying "I dare you! Then I'll show you!" Secondly, I dont give a sweet damn what Coutler says however she does offend and noone "feigns it" and you should back this up if this is actually meant to be "trustworthy"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:With respect, he has raised an important point. I believe that at least some of Coulter's critics have been offended by her comments, particular those who they are directed at. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:16, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: It's easy to see why Coulter's critics would feign offense, in their attempt to score political points. It's not so easy to see why they would be genuinely offended. Are they equally offended by similar jokes/comments by [[liberals]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Hm. AdenJ is currently... "away", but I just saw this in the Recent Changes. I can understand why liberals would be genuinely offended by her remarks:
:::*"Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
:::**Right. This of course does not offend liberals in the slightest...
:::*"Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."
:::**See above; I guess no liberal will be offended by that. No sir...
:::*"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned."
:::**Of course, women will only ''feign'' being offended by this. They know that they are incapable of understanding how money is earned! Sure!
:::And how about some of her book titles?
:::*Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2003)
:::*Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2004)
:::*How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2005)
:::*If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans (2007)
:::Are you seriously claiming that not one of these lines is going to genuinely offend anybody? If anybody said that conservatives are lying traitors who are driven by Satan and should not be allowed to vote because they're all anti-American idiots, I'm very sure that conservatives would be offended. Maybe not you, but others will be. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:39, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Huh. I... see. Thanks for clarifying this quite... unique view of liberals. [frowns] --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ??? Your statement is incoherent. Are pretending that [[liberals]] don't deny they are [[liberals]]? Check out the comments of [[Hillary Clinton]] and scores of posters here, perhaps including yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::??? Are you saying that I'm a liberal? What do you base this on? Your [[political identification bias]], maybe? I certainly didn't give you any hint of my political affiliation other than disagreeing with you. Classic case, I would say.
:::::::It's typical conservative style to label any posting as "incoherent", and if there was such an article here, I would add it as the new number 1 entry. ;)
:::::::If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words and simply cite a webcomic: "Dude, see this huge sweat-drop? It means I'm totally grossed out." - Oh, and don't pretend to be offended by this post. I know you'd just be feigning it to score points in this discussion, just like you know that no liberal is genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks.
:::::::But hey, your site, your wikiality. If you want to claim that no liberal is offended by being called a lying traitor, then you can obviously do so. [shrug] I at first assumed that this was some odd misunderstanding, but your post clarified the position to the degree that I know that my best move is to disengage. Which I tried to do, before you called my post "incoherent". Let's hope that this second attempt will be more fruitful. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:58, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

* [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]: Comments like ''If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words'' are out of place here. Kindly confine your comments to discussion of how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:06, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::So my comparably tame remark is a personal remark, but nobody will be genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks? What if I claimed that you and Aschlafly are only feigning it to silence me? How would you prove me wrong?
::Also, please note that I only made that remark after Aschlafly labeled my post "incoherent", which I found quite insulting. Or how about Aschlafly implicitly labeling me as a liberal, based on nothing other than him disagreeing with me? I accept your warning (and I already said that I was retreating and disengaging, once implicitly and once explicitly), but I must protest against the fact that ''only I'' receive one. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 11:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I had written an earlier version which I though was fairly neutral (see a section above, HelpJazz condoned it). But in light of the view that... "''No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.''" ...I think I'll just step away. I... don't understand how it can be claimed that one would not be offended by such comments as JBrown listed, I certainly would be (perhaps, I have a slightly different interpretation of "offense"?). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: Some liberals claim they are offended by a prayer that simply thanks God. Does you think that really offends them? I don't. Claiming offense is an effective way to demand censorship, or try to ostracize someone and drive her off television. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::Well, no. A prayer thanking God does not insult, criticize or even address the "offended" party, so I think you're quite right when you say liberals are feigning offense in such a case. However, the comments listed above directly attack liberals, so I would not be surprised if there was in fact some genuine offense taken. Wouldn't you be at all offended if someone said such things about you? ''"traitors or idiots", "lie constantly", "motivated by Stalin"...'' If not, I'll assume that I am understanding "offense" differently.

::Now I'm not saying she's wrong, or that she should have to censor herself at all, but is it really that unbelievable that someone could be offended by such comments? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2008-05-15T02:45:35Z

Feebasfactor: /* Feigning offence */ perhaps, um... no, I don't understand -_-

Talk:Painting

2008-05-14T22:52:04Z

Feebasfactor: /* Christo */ [EDIT CONFLICT] that is interesting, again; thanks (though I do not plan to enter the debate myself)

== Christo? ==

He's not really a painter - more of a sculptural/installation artist, no? [[User:BrentM|BrentM]] 18:00, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Yes. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:47, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:Related follow-up: Then why is the "surrounded islands" shown on this page on painting? I'm no art student, but if this is an example of a painting (which I highly doubt), then it definitely needs an explanation. I will remove the image for the time being because it completely looks out of place in its current form. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:07, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: He made a painting that day, it is enough to be an example. Before deleting see the reply or wait. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:40, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::So we're keeping a non-painting as an example for painting because the artist had also made a painting that day? Please, either replace the image with the painting in question or delete it. Right now, that part of the entry flat out makes no sense. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:53, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps we could see if there was a copy of the painting which is in the public domain. That way we could put the two pictures side to side to provide a comparison between subject and result (although there are probably better examples out there). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I came here to say "why is such an obvious non-painting, by an artist who is not primarily known as a painter, included (and given such prominence) in an article about ''painting''?" I see I'm not the first! Why is this even (apparently, reading between the lines of the above comments) contentious? Delete it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:57, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

: In the article there is: "''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques.''" The image shows precisely that; an example that shows how wide is the world of painters. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::It isn't painting, it is [[installation art]]. Painting is a little narrower in its scope. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Have you not seen "Mural painting" that is installed or moved? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

 
[[Image:Kellner Oil Spill.jpg|thumb|Oil Spill by Lisa Kellner]]

Is this installation art or sculptural painting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Post-modern sculpture. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The juries of that art exposition had to learn it.

Oil Spill.

Quilting pins and paint on prepared board

8’ x 4’ x 5.5

As the article says:

''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques. ''

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
2006

:While the quote is correct ''in context'', you are misapplying it. It does not mean that a sculpture is a painting, or an installation piece is a painting. Kellner's piece, for example, was ultimately not defined as installation art because the pins were not applied directly to the gallery wall as originally intended. By misusing the "new forms" quotation above you have redefined the art world. This article talk page, for example, can now be called a painting: I have simply used a new material and technique to paint it. I call it '''פּופּיק ''':) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: In art, for centuries experts do not agree of what is this or the other. I can not expect to have universal applause. I could accept to remove the image in question after a serious debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::: ''Some adhere to a rigid definition of "art", such as paintings, sculpture and other traditional genres, while others believe that art should not be strictly defined, and thus believe that anything progressive may be labeled as such.'' Source:Our own article on [[Aesthetics]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:07, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::That is about defining ''art'' - not defining "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean that painting is not art? Amazing! No more is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Joaquín, you are plucking random quotes and applying them incorrectly. I'm sure this isn't at all deliberate, and is more a linguistic thing than anything else, but you are butchering what the quotes originally intended to mean. ''Most'' painting is of course art: slapping a coat of white emulsion on my bathroom ceiling isn't strictly art. The quote you used above is about defining the boundaries of "art" - it has nothing to do with justifying a sculpture being labelled a painting. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, lets see what happens. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, that's not really an option - the article won't fix itself. People will become bored of trying to explain in as inoffensive manner as possible that you are wrong and someone will have to come along and completely rewrite the entire thing from scratch. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Joaquín, I agree with Fox here. While painting may be "art" that does not mean that all art is painting, and while "installation art" may be considered art, I know of no-one who would consider it painting. I don't wish to be rude here but is there perhaps a language difference? I think the islands picture should be moved to an article on installation art which '''''is '''''worthy of its own page. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:38, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Dating is incorrect==
I doubt that the paintings in those caves are 17,000 years old - how could they be? The Flood would have destroyed them, so they must be post-Flood. They must only be a few thousand years old at best. 14:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Ruined==
Thankyou for ruining another article and locking it to prevent it being fixed. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hey Fox! It's nice to see you're back again by the way, and I hope you're able to get right back into editing again. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

The article will be protected until a serious debate is done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:It was done. You were wrong. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I have invited Sharon and Bethany to be the jury in this debate. It has to be well done with time to search for the opinion of experts and time to consider the arguments. NOT TO CHANGE THING IN A HURRY!
I expect to be clear enough. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Care to have a third vote on the jury? Setting aside what use was made of it, Aschlflay seemed pleased with my last stab at resolving article disputes, and I'm trying to find ways to be helpful around here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:09, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Christo ==

On his own words:

Christo: First, we should discuss why it takes such a long time. I'd like to explain why some art historians, critics or writers have some problems in grasping this project.

Christo: All interpretations are valid.

Jeanne-Claude: But if you told a painter who has finished painting a horse, "This is a cow," the painter would be very furious.

Christo: The use of cloth in the history of art is as old as the history of art. Artists use the fabric in sculpture and painting and the fabric has taken enormous dimensions, enormous sizes [Christo shows a book, with a multitude of classical paintings and sculptures in which fabric has a dominant role]. The fabric creates formality. This is why we do this in all the projects, we play with the fabric, using the resource of that material to create these works.

[http://www.jca-online.com/christo.html] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:14, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

As artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude are as unclassifiable as their art. '''They are at once painter and sculptor, and yet neither...''' [http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/christo/elsen.html] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:20, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

His use of Cubist-derived collage to unite drawings, materials, maps and photographs is the mark of a modern artist. Beginning with his training as a painter working on stretched canvases, fabric has always been essential to Christo and Jeanne-Claude's art. The fabric itself supplies the colour: the off-white of Wrapped Coast and Running Fence, the rich gold of The Pont Neuf Wrapped, the flamingo pink of the Miami Surrounded Islands, the planned golden gates for Central Park in New York City, the yellow and blue of The Umbrellas project. [[Ibidem]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:24, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni was a painter. But nobody has ever called the Statue of David a "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

No, the David in normally considered an statue, but Chisto and Jeanne are not Michelangelo:

They define themselves as environmental artists ("Labels are important mostly for bottles of wine") who "borrow space and create gentle disturbances for a few days. But, they say, their work is not about improving the landscape. Rather, "It is interpretation. Claude Monet painted the Cathedral of Rouen. One of his paintings is pink, one blue, one yellow. He never says that the cathedral is not beautiful. He makes an interpretation of the Cathedral of Rouen. This is art." [http://painting.about.com/b/2006/11/04/interview-with-the-artists-christo-and-jeanne-claude.htm] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Find a quote where anybody other than you calls that piece of installation art a "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:You keep harking back to quotes about the definitions of "art" , NOT the definitions of "painting". Nobody is saying it is not art, but that doesn't make it a painting! [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps we're missing the metaphor [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] is shooting for: The earth, the island itself is the canvas, the fabrics and their colors the "paints".
::If the "sculptures" that Christo creates are seen, not as a three dimensional work but rather as a 3-dimensional work masquerading ''as'' a two-dimensional work which is what a painting is at heart. Perhaps a compromise could be reached by creating a sub header realizing this? [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 18:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:That is quite an... interesting interpretation, MargeryCampbell. Thank you for, once again, providing another perspective to the issue, which perhaps had not been considered. :-] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:52, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Like I said earlier, I have decreed this talk page one of my paintings - stop graffittiing on it :P [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Painting

2008-05-14T22:23:50Z

Feebasfactor: /* Ruined */ I almost didn't notice, welcome back

== Christo? ==

He's not really a painter - more of a sculptural/installation artist, no? [[User:BrentM|BrentM]] 18:00, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Yes. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:47, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:Related follow-up: Then why is the "surrounded islands" shown on this page on painting? I'm no art student, but if this is an example of a painting (which I highly doubt), then it definitely needs an explanation. I will remove the image for the time being because it completely looks out of place in its current form. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:07, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: He made a painting that day, it is enough to be an example. Before deleting see the reply or wait. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:40, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::So we're keeping a non-painting as an example for painting because the artist had also made a painting that day? Please, either replace the image with the painting in question or delete it. Right now, that part of the entry flat out makes no sense. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:53, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps we could see if there was a copy of the painting which is in the public domain. That way we could put the two pictures side to side to provide a comparison between subject and result (although there are probably better examples out there). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I came here to say "why is such an obvious non-painting, by an artist who is not primarily known as a painter, included (and given such prominence) in an article about ''painting''?" I see I'm not the first! Why is this even (apparently, reading between the lines of the above comments) contentious? Delete it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:57, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

: In the article there is: "''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques.''" The image shows precisely that; an example that shows how wide is the world of painters. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::It isn't painting, it is [[installation art]]. Painting is a little narrower in its scope. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Have you not seen "Mural painting" that is installed or moved? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

 
[[Image:Kellner Oil Spill.jpg|thumb|Oil Spill by Lisa Kellner]]

Is this installation art or sculptural painting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Post-modern sculpture. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The juries of that art exposition had to learn it.

Oil Spill.

Quilting pins and paint on prepared board

8’ x 4’ x 5.5

As the article says:

''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques. ''

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
2006

:While the quote is correct ''in context'', you are misapplying it. It does not mean that a sculpture is a painting, or an installation piece is a painting. Kellner's piece, for example, was ultimately not defined as installation art because the pins were not applied directly to the gallery wall as originally intended. By misusing the "new forms" quotation above you have redefined the art world. This article talk page, for example, can now be called a painting: I have simply used a new material and technique to paint it. I call it '''פּופּיק ''':) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: In art, for centuries experts do not agree of what is this or the other. I can not expect to have universal applause. I could accept to remove the image in question after a serious debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::: ''Some adhere to a rigid definition of "art", such as paintings, sculpture and other traditional genres, while others believe that art should not be strictly defined, and thus believe that anything progressive may be labeled as such.'' Source:Our own article on [[Aesthetics]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:07, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::That is about defining ''art'' - not defining "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean that painting is not art? Amazing! No more is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Joaquín, you are plucking random quotes and applying them incorrectly. I'm sure this isn't at all deliberate, and is more a linguistic thing than anything else, but you are butchering what the quotes originally intended to mean. ''Most'' painting is of course art: slapping a coat of white emulsion on my bathroom ceiling isn't strictly art. The quote you used above is about defining the boundaries of "art" - it has nothing to do with justifying a sculpture being labelled a painting. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, lets see what happens. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, that's not really an option - the article won't fix itself. People will become bored of trying to explain in as inoffensive manner as possible that you are wrong and someone will have to come along and completely rewrite the entire thing from scratch. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Joaquín, I agree with Fox here. While painting may be "art" that does not mean that all art is painting, and while "installation art" may be considered art, I know of no-one who would consider it painting. I don't wish to be rude here but is there perhaps a language difference? I think the islands picture should be moved to an article on installation art which '''''is '''''worthy of its own page. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:38, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Dating is incorrect==
I doubt that the paintings in those caves are 17,000 years old - how could they be? The Flood would have destroyed them, so they must be post-Flood. They must only be a few thousand years old at best. 14:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Ruined==
Thankyou for ruining another article and locking it to prevent it being fixed. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hey Fox! It's nice to see you're back again by the way, and I hope you're able to get right back into editing again. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

The article will be protected until a serious debate is done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:It was done. You were wrong. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I have invited Sharon and Bethany to be the jury in this debate. It has to be well done with time to search for the opinion of experts and time to consider the arguments. NOT TO CHANGE THING IN A HURRY!
I expect to be clear enough. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Care to have a third vote on the jury? Setting aside what use was made of it, Aschlflay seemed pleased with my last stab at resolving article disputes, and I'm trying to find ways to be helpful around here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:09, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Christo ==

On his own words:

Christo: First, we should discuss why it takes such a long time. I'd like to explain why some art historians, critics or writers have some problems in grasping this project.

Christo: All interpretations are valid.

Jeanne-Claude: But if you told a painter who has finished painting a horse, "This is a cow," the painter would be very furious.

Christo: The use of cloth in the history of art is as old as the history of art. Artists use the fabric in sculpture and painting and the fabric has taken enormous dimensions, enormous sizes [Christo shows a book, with a multitude of classical paintings and sculptures in which fabric has a dominant role]. The fabric creates formality. This is why we do this in all the projects, we play with the fabric, using the resource of that material to create these works.

[http://www.jca-online.com/christo.html] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:14, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

As artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude are as unclassifiable as their art. They are at once painter and sculptor, and yet neither, [http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/christo/elsen.html] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:20, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Faux

2008-05-13T23:45:44Z

Feebasfactor: it's true, I've seen them call it this a lot... wonder if I should add a "liberal deceit" category

'''''Faux''''' (pronounced like [[foe]]) is a [[French]] word for "not" or "false". The phrase is used to describe generic items that are attempted to be passed off as the "brand-name" item. It has also been used politically by [[liberal]]s to describe [[Fox News]] (i.e. "Faux News").

Censorship

2008-05-13T04:59:10Z

Feebasfactor: I really don't see it staying this way for long... but at least now this version contains all revisions

'''Censorship''' is the prevention from communication of ideas and information which are deemed offensive, dangerous or sensitive. The word derives from ''censor'', the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

The forms of censorship most frequently associated with the term, are moral censorship, political censorship, and religious censorship.

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the most well-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the [[Google]] search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independance, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

Moral censorship suppresses information which is deemed to be offensive or damaging to public morality. It is commonly found in films broadcast on television, where scenes involving sex or violence are edited or excised, and instances of swearing are overdubbed with inoffensive words, background noise, or (less frequently) "bleeped out". Hip-hop and rock music albums are often released in two forms, one of which is a "clean" version which has had offensive material edited out.

Religious censorship combines features of political and moral censorship, as it can serve either to protect a ruling power, or to protect the public from coming into contact with heresies. One example of religious censorship is the Catholic Church's reaction to Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system, which was thought at the time to be contrary to scripture.

More current examples include the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom or the destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref> Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views.<ref>See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; however, these standards tend to fluctuate depending on time and place. Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be the case in conservative Muslim countries.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Intelligent design and Richard Dawkins

2008-05-09T22:52:00Z

Feebasfactor: ...but perhaps it can be improved! ...if you'd like

==Context==

I'm a little confused by the stand-alone presentation of these isolated quotes... Perhaps a little context could be added? For example, what were they talking about at the time? What did Dawkins mean by his comment? Evidently it was along [[materialist]]/[[atheist]] lines, but beyond that I am not sure what his point was... I believe these quotes could be more informative with more context. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:48, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Would it be at all useful if I tried to look for some? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:52, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design and Richard Dawkins

2008-05-09T22:48:46Z

Feebasfactor: well, we don't want these to appear... quote-mined

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-09T19:58:33Z

Feebasfactor: /* Question / Cause */ oh. ok. hmm.

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-09T03:17:23Z

Feebasfactor: /* Question / Cause */ it's a mystery! we're just not sure if there is an explanation... ideas?

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal bias

2008-05-05T22:03:05Z

Feebasfactor: Undo revision 447696 by Special:Contributions/Cal05000 (User talk:Cal05000) you shouldn't remove other people's comments...

== Issues with "Examples of Liberal Style" ==

I really think far too many of these read like petty snipes that, rather than addressing the particular inclinations of liberal writers, single out politically neutral manifestations of rudeness or poor logic. Perhaps we should institute the following test: only examples which could not conceivably be issued by liberals against conservatives be included.

What do I mean?

Well, one can imagine a liberal saying that conservatives "claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false". Equally a liberal might suggest a conservative guilty of "attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate." About half of this entry constitutes hopelessly woolly thinking. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

How can you include the section on "emboldening the terrorists" when a majority of Americans clearly believe we should leave, while citing majority opinions in your favor elsewhere? --[[User:Moderate]] 13:28, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

:What is your source for that majority?

:47 percent of Iraqis want US-led forces to leave Iraq immediately and 34 percent want the troops to leave when the security situation improves. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/pollindex.htm] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Hmm, "we should leave" involves the question of timing:
::*Three in five Americans (61%) think US forces should get out of Iraq within a year, including 24 percent who favor immediate withdrawal and 37 percent who prefer a one year timetable. Another 32 percent of Americans say the forces should stay until security improves. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/withdraw/2007/0906summarybbcpoll.htm]

== What is ...? ==

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 01:02 15 March 2007

:I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I also think this article should include a description of what [[liberal]] bias is so that the [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

uh, momoka....jon stewart is a COMEDIAN! he is not a news caster... and colbert? how can you possibly take him seriously? i watch those shows for LAUGHS...[[User:Moderate]] 13:31, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

==Unreferenced statements==

Cut from intro:

:The problem with liberal bias is not just the harm which advocacy of false liberal notions does (which is bad enough), but that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness. Many of them quite literally and sincerely consider themselves "middle of the road" (see [[Dan Rather]], as mentioned in Goldberg's ''[[Bias (book)]]''.

[[user:Hojimachong]] called this "original research". That stings a bit, because I'm a refugee from Wikipedia where "OR" is a big no-no. So I'll try to dig up some referencs for this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I think I've provided 2 citations for the idea that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness and 1 citation for Dan Rather calling a Liberal newspaper "middle of the road". This still might not be up to encyclopedia quality, because it's only one source: [[Bernard Goldberg]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== References that don't support the item they're referencing ==

Everything in it should have a citation.

And the citation should be a published statement by someone authoritative—a recognized conservative is fine, but not "me and my brother"—that ''says the thing in question is liberal.''

What set me off is that there '''is''' a reference for Dan Rather's being considered liberal. But the reference does not say Dan Rather is liberal. It says Dan Rather things the New York Times is middle-of-the-road.

There's a difference between "X says Dan Rather is liberal" and "Dan Rather says Y is middle-of-the-road."

Particularly when no source has been cited for the New York Times' supposed liberal bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==According to this site==
The nation's major media outlets ''seem'' to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative bias ==

Could someone who knows please consider writing the matching [[Conservative bias]] article listing Conservative news sources? I am surprised and confused that Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia by claiming that most Americans are Conservative, but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias. Thankyou. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the ''majority'' of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes ''TV Guide'', ''Sky'' and ''Direct-TV'' satellite services, the various ''Fox'' networks, ''Harper-Collins'' publishing, The ''London Times'', New York ''Post'', dozens of newspapers in Australia and the ''20th Century Fox'' motion picture and television studios. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.
:Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)
:General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000
:TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
:TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.
:NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, please don't make me embarass you, with your posting of totally distorted and biased figures. You are in my area of expertise, and most of those coroporations gave exactly the same, if not more, to Democratic Party candidates. You have to go to real stats, not moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::Thanks TK. I meant ''American'' newspapers, as I know News Corp is the largest newspaper publisher in Australia. The only US newspaper you mentioned is the New York Post. Is that a widely-distributed and well-known newspaper like the NY Times and Washington Post, but Conservative? It's not mentioned in the references for liberal/conservative bias, that I can see. Is there widely perceived to be a liberal/conservative bias in the movie houses such as 20th Century Fox? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political ''process'', I do not have a good grasp on the ''politics'' of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news. :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

Ed Driscoll wrote:
*Austin Bay asked me to guest host the Pajamas Media "Blog Week In Review" podcast this week, so I interviewed Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality who left the network and has written a new book, very much in the vein of Bernard Goldberg's books on American media bias, titled Can We Trust The BBC. I tried to aim the questions towards an American perspective on the topic, but then, how could I not? Aitken also discussed in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. Regular readers of this blog won't exactly be shocked where the BBC comes down on these issues, but for those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, its an eye-opener. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Technically the term "objective" is objective, therefore I wonder if it is differences in culture that can explain any bias by the BBC. Surely the BBC is less geared towards sensationalism then American media and it focuses on the issues that are being discussed rather then simply telling the masses where the majority of their opinion lies. This would be more encouraging of a neutral environment where the individual is left to make their own choices. Britain is considerably less puritian in its customs and culture as well as more liberal. The fact that a liberal bias may exist is less important, though then whether it allows for opposing views to be formed. I am unable to do anything more than simply offer a generalization, however, as issues are exceedingly complex and diverse as are the ways of covering them, but surely the issue is more complex then whether the BBC is biased or not.--[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

:(Protection log) (diff; hist) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (protected "Liberal bias": Warning of locking soon.... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Explain, please... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's locked? ==
''Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it.''
I am Gulik's complete lack of surprise. But last I checked, I _am_ a registered user. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Middle of the Road ==
" During a phone conversation, Bernard Goldberg asked him, "What do you consider the New York Times? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." "
:The article uses this quote to prove that Dan Rather has a liberal bias? That seems rather foolish to me considering that if left is liberal and right is conservative the middle would be no bias at all. [[User:Dilbert|Dilbert]] 02:27, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Communism for Dummies ==

Can anyone tell me what this is? The others are all famous, but I haven't heard of this one. It was entered by Hektor back in March, and he was later blocked for questionable edits, so I'd just like to verify we don't have a red herring here. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Sigh. There is a whole line of books with the tag ....."For Dummies" explaining things like "Computers for Dummies", "Windows XP for Dummies", etc. Check Barnes and Noble's website. Or Amazon.com. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes my friend I have a few of those, but in regards to liberal bias if that is what was meant then that wouldn't exactly be a good example. I was just wondering if there was some infamous show or newspaper by that name that I wasn't aware of. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Media bias ==

So... since no one can agree whether media etc. are "accused of having liberal bias" or "have well known liberal bias," why don't we follow [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandment #2]? If it's so obvious, shouldn't it be written somewhere objective? (And no, that page of out-of-context quotes about minor examples of bias can't be a source; at least not the only source). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:huh? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I seem to be rambling and in need of sleep. Let me try again: we are on the cusp of a revert war over the issue of whether the media is "accused" of having a liberal bias, or whether they have a "well known" liberal bias. Why don't we just add some sources instead of reverting? See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandments #2 and #5], as well as the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette Editing Etiquette] ''("put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old")''. According to the rules, both versions of the statement in contention are not acceptible in their current form. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:31, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::ok.. so you mean like, "according to longtime media watcher and analyst so-and-so the [[MSM]] is dominated by commie stooges & useful idiots", for example? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments#_note-1 footnote] to commandment two: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Though good luck finding an authoritative source calling the NYTimes "commie stooges & useful idiots" ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

*Great sourcing on the CBS News bias, Rob. I don't think we will see Uncle Walter issuing an apology will we? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:05, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== The United Nations? ==

I'm not sure if the United Nations fits in here. It's a liberal organization, yes, but it wouldn't seem right to put, say, the ACLU or the Democratic Party in here, as it's not a media organization per se. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:A gathering of nations in a forum for discussion originally created to prevent a third world war is inherently liberal? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:39, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, if you use a different definition of the word liberal. In international politic theory the spectrum is more often broken into "realist" and "liberal". In a nutshell, a realist believes in the use of power and force to ensure security and enforce policy, and a liberal believes in organizations to ensure security and enforce policy. In these terms, the UN is the definition of a liberal solution :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::: You make [[liberalism]] sound less like [[evil]] than some others here. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:24, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::In the olden days, Americans could always say, "Let the UN handle it;" thank the Lord for Conservapedia, cause now we can see just exactly what this attitude of letting "UN Peacekeepers handle it" really means: [[United Nations#UN Sexual Abuse Scandals]]. [[User:Robs|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! One should be highly offended at terrorists and criminals being humiliated! Of course that is on the same level as stealing billions from the poor, letting hundreds of thousands starve, and aiding anti-Semites.....of course. Kazumaru, see [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes indeed. Those sadistic American torture techniques, making Mighty Islamic Warriors of God wear women's panties. What will the neighbors think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:* I appreciate you only disagreeing after you banned me, TK, however... I'm not referring to the panties-on-head thing. I'm referring solely to legitimate acts of torture, like [[Waterboarding]]. And I don't mean surfing.

::*Do you have any proof whatsoever, any proof that would fit WP's Attribution policies, and the criteria here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance Historical method: '''authenticity and provenance'''], to prove (a) waterboarding was '''ever''' approved by '''any''' US Govt. Executive Agency and/or Dept., and (b) (most importantly) waterboarding was '''ever used''' in recent years? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

:* Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:32, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== "More then half of Americans agree that their is liberal media bias"==
Here is an interesting poll which gives more evidence of liberal media bias [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:06, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually that ''is'' an interesting poll, but you're reading words into it that's not there. First, it simply says that 'more than half of Americans say new orgs...are biased'. It does '''not''' say 'liberal bias'. Many, many people do indeed believe the MSM is biased, and many believe it is biased towards the right. Bias is most obvious on Fox News, who make a mockery of their tacky marketing phrase 'Fair & Balanced'. Anybody can see their entire output is heavily slanted to the right (cf. the use of the phrase 'Homicide Bombers', the only org outside the White House to use the phrase; even the Army uses the phrase 'Suicide Bomber', as it's more accurate). But bias is also visible in places like the NYT, which have a tendency to bias left.

Bias is everywhere, and the sooner people on the Right understand that the Left believe this too, the better. If all sides of the argument see bias, maybe we should fix our news? [[User:PhilLynott|PhilLynott]] 22:20, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:That is a very interesting analysis; so liberals are pro-"suicide bomber" whereas right-wingers in the White House and FOX News oppose it. Even the Pentagon has jumped on the liberal bandwagon with this one, defying thier right-wing bosses and cow towing to the liberal slant. Hmmmm, that's news itself. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:We should include the quote from Diane Sawyer when she said she was being interviewed for jury duty. A lawyer asked her if she could be objective. She responded with something like, "I'm a journalist. I'm always objective." The Courtroom broke out into a roar of laughter. Sawyer says it was the most embarassing moment of her life. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, after a second look it did not say liberal bias, thanks for the catch. But still, if you look through the article, it seems to imply leftest bias in the media. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:33, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Poor Diane. :-( A long way from those long walks on the beach with Richard Nixon in exile. Sawyer was part of the very small staff working for Nixon post-exile. She had a nible mind, and a fierce dedication to Nixon. Then she moved East, married Mike Nichols...and what happened! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:23, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:*[[Monica Crowley]] now is the spiritual heir of Nixon's thinking, although Hillary Clinton has been the most successful at the ballot box using everything she learned from Nixon. Amazing, how the true heirs of Nixonion thought all seem to be women. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
*Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 17 ==

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp) [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:No, you see, he's an unpopular figure so he becomes a liberal by default. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 14:45, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::Right. Let's call it "liberalism in reverse." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*If John Kerry, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy all switched parties and/or announced they were "Conservative", would that make it so? Fuzzy, your thinking is fuzzy, it seems. Although I do admit it is sometimes difficult to translate conservative UK to conservative US. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:56, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::The broader question is over the [[Communazi pact]] and the policy of [[appeasement]]. Chamberlain, like [[Rudolf Hess]], thought peace between Germany & Great Britain was possible. Was Chamberlain a Communazi? I don't know, we'll have to look into it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Did Chamberlain ever switch parties? It seems he was MP for the Conservative Party since 1918, took part in governments of the Conservative Party, and later became their leader. Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:This is where the term [[Western betrayal#Czechoslovakia]] came from; the [[Treaty of Versailles]] set up many trip wires. Britian under Chamberlain failed to maintain thier obligations. At the time, it was labelled "[[appeasement]]", however now in retrospect, we see more and more [[Comintern]] [[subversion]] through the processes of setting up [[Lenin]]ist style [[united front]]s. All falls into the category of Cold War revisionism since the opening of KGB, Comintern, and NSA Archives. [[Allen Weinstein]] is now the [[Archivist of the United States]], and we are still collecting and categorizing documents. The process of actual interpretation is in its infancy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:13, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Example 25 ==

The example 25 is incomprehensible. Can somebody rephrase it to make clear what the point actually is. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? At this hour, it's about the best I can manage. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:42, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Point 25 is still confusing, close to being unintelligible. If CP wants to refer to it elsewhere, it better be clear what is meant. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:47, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

This is completely ridiculous. "Liberals take up more of their allotted time in debates." This is just the sort of school-yard jibe that gets Conservapedia a bad name with liberal outlets. There is no statistical basis to it and it just sound like the ravings of somebody who once got talked over on a school debate. Delete it.--[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:13, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

== Example 24 ==

This point confuses me a little. The proof that someone's a liberal is their denial of it? Doesn't this inadvertently encompass those are actually aren't liberals? This is truly dangerous territory! (Imagine a mental disease is diagnosed by the patient's denial of having it - how do we actually find out whether someone actually has it or not? A normal person who logically says "I do not have this disease" is equally "proven" to have it then someone who actually has it, according to this example) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 34 ==

This footnote is confusing. I'm assuming this is a typo. Would seem to be an example of conservatives "demanding an apology". Don't know if it's an apology per se, but definitely doesn't strengthen the argument in any way.

== Uncyclopedia ==

Add [[Uncyclopedia]] to the list at the top. They sport heavy liberal bias and hate speech against conservatives. May God have mercy on their souls for their blasphemy! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== 'Liberalism' ==

I go along with much of what is said but here in Brit the word 'liberal' has a somewhat different connotation. We have here three mainstrwam political parties: Labour (or, as it likes to call itself nowaday, 'New Labour' - even more extremist than 'old' Labour!), Conservative (aka 'Tory'), and Liberals (aka 'LibDems'!). There are a handful of other parties e.g. the BNP or British National Party, UKIP, the UK Independence Party, and there are a number of locality-based parties. Of the mainstream parties, the Tories are generally considered to be the party of the right but this is not necessarily so.

Historically, the Liberal Party (formerly the Whigs), now incorporated into the LibDems, was the party of the right at which time the Tories were considered to be 'middle of the road'!

Our biggest media presentation problem here is the BBC, which whilst repetedly saying they are 'independent' has in fact a disgusting 'liberal' agenda all of its own. And we have to cough up a hefty licence fee for watching television which goes into BBC coffers - even though we may not ever watch BBC! In fact, according to a strict interpretation of the law, we are strictly liable to pay this even if we ''never'' watch any TV but have a computer monitor! {{unsigned|Celtish}} 13:09, 14 September 2007

*Yes, Celtish! The true mark of Socialism, it is. You are invited to improve our article on the [[BBC]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Done [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 14:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

BBC is not a for profit entity, is it? unlike most of the so-called "mainstream" media in the US. Neither is BBC like the American Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which subsists on Jim & Tammy Faye Baker style beg-a-thons and the public purse. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Rob, the BBC is more like PBS, than not, however. Both controlled by appointed boards, made by the Government, and funded, in whole or in part, by it. In the UK, unlike the U.S., they are forced to pay a tax to maintain the BBC, which, like I said, is more socialistic then what we have. Not better by much, however. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:05, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Although the BBC is technically not-for-profit it does have an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is in fact a major publisher in its own right. [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-05T22:01:23Z

Feebasfactor: /* Question / Cause */ ...are you not telling us because we're not open minded? :(

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-05T17:18:47Z

Feebasfactor: /* Question / Cause */ possible explanations... or maybe liberalism just causes cancer, haha

User talk:ITSAMEMARIO

2008-04-30T03:10:26Z

Feebasfactor: ...hoping I won't regret this... but in any case... welcome to Conservapedia!

Hey, if any people who are familiar with the "scripting" of this website, I would like some help!--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 22:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm familiar with it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 22:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Could you direct me to a site that explains all of this crazy stuff?--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 22:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know of a specific place that teaches the scripting but here is 95% of what you will need to know

<nowiki>[[:Category:A]]</nowiki> links to the category on A
<nowiki>[[Category:A]]</nowiki> adds something to the category A
<nowiki>[[Car|Hello]]</nowiki> links to the article Car with the word Hello
<nowiki>[[Car]]</nowiki> links to the article Car using the word Car
<nowiki>{{Car}}</nowiki> adds the template Car to an article

-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 22:36, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Do you need any more information -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 22:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I'm good for now... I think. I will just Google 'how to use wikipedia code' If I need any more help. This site does use the same code as wikipedia, right?--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 22:41, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

We use the same coding but we do have templates they don't have -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 22:42, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

One last code you'll need to know is <nowiki>#REDIRECT[[A]]</nowiki> it redirects an article to the article A -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 22:44, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

K thanks, I ask for more if I don't know anything. Thanks for helping out a noob! ^.^ lol--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 22:45, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Error in your user box==
You have a spelling error in your I (heart) Mario user box. "..thinks nitendo has..". I thought I'd point this out instead of changing it myself and having you yell at me for editing your user page without permission. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 22:44, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Whats the error? (sorry, I just have horrible grammar skills)--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 22:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

It's spelled nintendo -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 22:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

DUH! Now I do feel like a total idiot. But eh, its late at night for me, and I'm tired, sooo. :P
--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 22:55, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ron Paul, /b/==

Sup? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

<s>Dear god, moar /b/ tards, as much as I find this amusing, an admin probably wont and you will get the B& hammer.--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 22:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)</s>
Put a meme on your page, so now we are even! lol--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 22:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:Once small, obscure concession is all I'm making... You may have noticed, I try to maintain a certain politeness and civility that I likely wouldn't have elsewhere - but I'm sure you can tell when caution might be necessary.
:PROTIP: New posts on talk pages go at the bottom. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:ITSAMEMARIO

2008-04-30T02:56:18Z

Feebasfactor: apologies if I am mistaken

Talk:Essay:Finding A Topic

2008-04-30T01:33:17Z

Feebasfactor: not quite college level, but, uh...

Is there a reason why this is the main article namespace? It seems it would be more appropriate in Essay: [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== This is an essay. ==

I am not quite sure what you mean by that comment because it is an essay. What do you mean it belongs in the namespace for Essay? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]
:The main article namespace is assumed to be for the encyclopedia content of Conservapedia. Other topics, such as essays and debates, each have their own namespace. As this article is not encyclopedic, it should probably either be in the essay namespace or in your own personal namespace. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 18:09, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
You are right, I see what you are saying. I will contact an administrator and see what I can do. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]
:Essay and Debate aren't actually namespaces; it just looks like they are. They should be, though. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== What did you think of this essay? ==

What did you guys think about it?

:That... depends what level it is being written for. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberal hate speech

2008-04-30T01:25:33Z

Feebasfactor: small introduction, hope it satisfies... can reword if it seems inappopriate

'''Liberal hate speech''' is [[hate speech]] employed by [[liberals]] - "widely provocative speech to denigrate a legally protected class or group of citizens defined by legislation"<ref>Definition; see [[Hate speech]], Conservapedia</ref>. It is surprising considering liberal support of [[affirmative action]] and [[political correctness]], but indicates that true [[tolerance]] does not necessarily follow from these tenets.

==Liberal hate speech against persons with disabilities==
*[[Rush Limbaugh]]
*News24 of South Africa has on its website an obituary for [[Ronald Reagan]] entitled, ''Gay about Reagan's death''. <ref>[http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1538744,00.html ''Gay about Reagan's death''], News24, 07/06/2004.</ref> and quotes Jon Beaupre, a gay journalist and Los Angeles radio talk show host as saying, "I have a feeling that an awful lot of [[gay]] people are going to be cheering, that 'Ding-dong! The wicked witch is dead'."

*Actor [[George Clooney]] is unapologetic about tasteless ridicule of an [[Alzheimer's]] sufferer:
:KURTZ: O'Reilly also criticized you for making a joke about [[Charlton Heston]], the former NRA chief, having Alzheimer's.

:CLOONEY: Yes.

:KURTZ: Was that in poor taste in retrospect?

:CLOONEY: Yes, oh, yes. It was in poor taste. It was a funny joke. It was in a room of 100 people. Yeah, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I have a lot of good friends who -- in fact, I have a very good friend who is dying of Alzheimer's. And it was just a funny joke. <ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/26/rs.00.html Interview With George Clooney], Transcript CNN Reliable Sources, October 26, 2003.</ref>

==Liberal hate speech against African-Americans==
*[[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] has been the relentless target of the most vile liberal hatred since his appointment; Spike Lee called him "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom."

*[[Colin Powell]] is a respected and popular Statesman who rejected offers to be drafted for President in 1996. In an interview, [[liberal activist]] Harry Belefonte stated, "there are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master to exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. That gave you privilege. Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master, as long as he will serve the master according to the master's dictates." <ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/157217&mode=thread&tid=25 Interview with Harry Belefonte], ''Democracy Now'', January 30th, 2006.</ref>

==Liberal hate speech against Hispanics==
*[[Alberto Gonzales]]. The first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General, was consistently mocked on liberal websites as 'Alberto "Speedy" Gonzales' <ref>[http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800028910&start=0 ''Speedy Gonzales to Resign''], Aug 27, 2007. Retrieved from History.com message boards August 30, 2007.</ref> during his tenure. Speedy Gonzales is a reference to a disparaging stereotypical cartoon character of Hispanics that Hollywood attempted to popularize in the 1950s and 60s. Upon his retirement, ''[[NBC News]]'' anchor [[Matt Lauer]] called Gonzales "a piñata" for the Democrats. [http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/08/2007-08-28-NBC-TDYpinata.rm]

==Liberal hate speech against Jews==
*Rev. [[Jesse Jackson]] said on Jaunary 25, 1984, "all Hymie wants to talk about, is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that's all they want to talk about." <ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=187440 Jesse and the Jews], Michael W. Hirschorn, ''The Harvard Crimson'', March 05, 1984.</ref>
*Anti-war activist [[Cindy Sheehan]] said "Casey was killed for lies and for a [[PNAC]] Neo-Con <ref>[http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0304&week=&msg=4zdiWX1EuCVzeRLDdQySKA&user=&pw= 'Neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish], Dr. Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, H-Net discussion April 6, 2003.</ref> agenda to benefit Israel", <ref>National Review, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2FjYjA3NDU2NThiZjI4YzFkYTdkZmViY2M5M2U4MTE= ''Dear Useful Idiot''], Catherine Seipp, May 26, 2006. </ref> accusing members of a vast right-wing Jewish conspiracy of being responsible for her sons death to benefit Israel.
*[[Richard Dawkins]] claimed that Jews "more or less monopolize American foreign policy." His comments have been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as "classic Anti-Semetism."<ref>[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/134346 Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy], Israel National News, October 8, 2007.</ref>

==Liberal hate speech against people of faith==

*[[Radical]] [[extremist]] [[Katherine Yurica]] stated the [[Republican Party]] gained power through "[[Hitler]]ian tactics", [[evangelical]] leaders from [[Billy Graham]] to [[Jerry Falwell]] "had to have read Hitler’s [[Mein Kampf]]" and [[Christian]]s have "[[fascist]]ic tendencies."<ref>[http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=494491&ct=928973 ''President Bush Called “Evil,” Evangelicals Equated With Nazis at NCC-Supported Conference''], John Lomperis, The Institute on Religion and Democracy. </ref><ref>[http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocalypse-no-christian-fascism-and.html Apocalypse No! Christian Fascism and the Nazi Legacy], Apocalypse No! An Indigenist Perspective, by Juan Santos, November 01, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#POV_editing Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pravknight/POV editing], Retrieved from Wikipedia October 22, 2007.</ref>

*[[Richard Dawkins]] in his 2006 book ''The God Delusion,'' states fundamentalist religion "saps the intellect,"<ref>[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]</ref> and refers to belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus."<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php Bryan Henderson's attempts to balance socialist political science teacher], a civil libertarian come face to face with leftist hate.
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29414 Liberal hate speech], Judith Reisman, ''[[WorldNetDaily.com]]'', October 25, 2002.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Public school culture

2008-04-28T03:11:34Z

Feebasfactor: I hope these links help improve the entry

'''Public school culture''' is a culture fostered in [[public school]] which is characterized by:

* fashion that includes black ([[Goth]]) clothing
* facial piercings and rings, [[tattoo]]s, and male earings
* [[depressed]] demeanors
* an absence of [[morality|"right" and "wrong"]]; instead, a principal will say someone "made the wrong choice"
* a sense of hopelessness
* a lack of critical thinking about [[liberal]] indoctrination
* [[compulsive profanity]]
* general inability to look at someone in the eye
* extreme [[anxiety]]
* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
* so accustomed to [[censorship]] of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or [[politically incorrect]]

(a start)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-04-28T03:10:06Z

Feebasfactor: /* Affirmative action */ so that really is where the term came from... nice to have that affirmed

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

People should also be aware that placing one's hand over their heart is required only for the pledge of allegiance, it is not required when one hears the star spangled banner (the national anthem).

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ahhh, so we have a self-admitted Godless Liberal, accusing conservatives, all of them apparently, of being racists. Nice and intellectual! Once again a "mobocracy" trait shining through, ignoring all logic and putting idealogical hatred first! Nice. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree completely! No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::He's not a Muslim. He became a very religious Christian in his early 20's and then he met Rev. Wright who's a racist, Afro-centrist Christian, and he's still a member of that church. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the original question, Obama would not be a good candidate because the only thing he has going for him is his charisma. Example: when asked, he said if elected, he would immediately pull all American troops out of Iraq. Wether you agree with the war or not doesn't matter - that would be irrisponsible. It is not a matter of race by any means - I would love to see a black president, but one who is actually qualified for the job.--[[User:Justintree|Justintree]] 14:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable. If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk. I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue. You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them. Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case. I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing. You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. S, this is really weird. I mean, Obama might be just left of Lenin, but I don't get the affirmative action thing. Do we know his SATs, LSATs, etc? Do we have any evidence that his "achievements" are based on AA? If not, then this will look to any sane person like a racist piece of poo article. I mean, c'mon, let's get this guy on the facts, not on bizarre assumptions. Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he benefited from AA. He may have, and if he did, where's the citation? Otherwise, it's racist gossip.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 16:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography. Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week. I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it. You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd. There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought. Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics. The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies. It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound. If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation. Please provide comments and present supporting evidence. If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Some childish heavy-handed coward anonymously and secretly blocked my account instead of using discussion to come to a conclusion on this matter. Whoever you are, you can't shut me up by clicking a check box. Give me a fair trial for violating site policy or prove me wrong. Keep blocking new accounts only proves your contempt for truth and free speech. [[User:NepotisMonachusB|NepotisMonachusB]] 08:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that AA thing is complete bigotry, you can be black and still achieve. This is very offencive , only a racist would be happy with it, no wonder only moderates and liberals will stand a chance of winning the election, be it McCain, clinton or obama, the conservative voice will never again take prominance in politics. Maybe after seeing this im quite releaved. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 12:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point. However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted). It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public). Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him. Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out". Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" ==

Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief. Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]]. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Aschlafly- you've avoided the point with more anti-liberal statements. While I'm happy to sling those around with you, bias is the question here. I'll try to make Feebasfactor's point a little clearer for you: Is there bias in the affirmative action statement, or is the accusation verifiable? If proof cannot be provided, how are we better are than the liberals on Wikipedia, who we bash daily on their bias? Do we even care anymore or have we abandoned Conservapedia's founding principles? [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 16:46, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Aschafly - If Republicans care about military experience, then why choose Reagan or G. W Bush, whose experience of warfare was minimal? And if I can point out something with my tongue firmly in my cheek, why are the current Republican candidates for the Oval Office all themselves from minorities - a Mormon, an Old Age Pensioner, an Evangelical, an African-American and a... a whatever the heck Ron Paul is? Isn't that affirmative action too? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::Aschafly - Let's say all the Democratic candidates for President are black. (Bear with me here.) These are all people who graduated from a prestigious school with high honors, worked as a lawyer, and served as a Congressman, governor, or mayor. Would you then say that all of them got to where they were as a result of affirmative action and nothing else? That none of the things they accomplished came as a result of their talent, or perhaps their intelligence? That successful minorities must be viewed upon with suspicion?

:::Kinda stupid hypothetical situation, I know, but I hope it gets my point across, however stupid you think that point may be. [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 20:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Let's say there's a young white guy, not bad-looking, but not all that original a thinker. His parent is a famous theocrat and a founder of the new Religious Right in the late 70s/early 80s. Despite his lack of original thinking and intelligence, he manages to get into an ivy league school, and despite that, his greatest accomplishment is a bizarre blogwiki hybrid on which he spreads hate and fear to children. Isn't that affirmative action?
::::Never mind, it's too weird to contemplate.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Peggy Noonan, that well-known leftist, in the well-known leftist publication The Wall Street Journal:

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you.
(I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)"

Possibly she means you guys. I merely suggest. "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" is at least good enough to have been written by David Duke.
Archer070

I'm removing that line until a citation of some kind is given. If there was an affirmative action program for congress in place I am sure that its Conservapedia entry would be even more popular than the one on Homosexuality. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 23:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== African american ==

In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
but
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
He is most certainly not african american.

He is not African American because he was born in Hawaii? You MUST be joking. O__O I mean, I have heard "He is not the descendant of African slaves, so he isn't really African American." and I have heard "Living all over the world, he surely isn't in touch with African American life." but I think you have taken the petty distinctions to a new low.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 12:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war. The full article is here:
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>

Here's the relevant portions:

<blockquote>
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.

He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."

As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.

Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.

Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
</blockquote>

Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== removed false information ==

While Obama is left of Stalin on some matters, the Affirmative Action statement is blatant racism without some example given. Further, the Harvard law Review is hardly "liberal', as it counts among it's alum Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. And IT DOES NOT HAVE A QUOTA!

We can disagree with his policies, but we are not going to lie about him.

Having the same issues as reported above this is the second time I've had to remove the affirmative action statement, which is completely unquantifiable. I've also made edits removing language which is somewhat misleading and gives the article a very bias anti-Obama slant. If this site is dedicated to eliminating bias, it should not turn a blind-eye to conservative bias or in this case blatant racial discrimination. I have also expanded upon the issue surrounding his voting "present" so often. As stated in the article, voting "present" is commonplace in the Illinois Senate on both sides of the aisle. I kindly ask that [[Aschlafly]] stops reverting the article back to its previous biased and misleading state. If you disagree with the edits I've made write on my talk page or respond on the article's talk page instead of simply eliminating my changes, all of which seek to further expand the information in the article and maintain neutrality as best as possible.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 11:39, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: The Harvard Law review is extremely liberal, and it does have racial quotas in its admission. Your false accusation of lying are not appreciated and will not be allowed.

: The statement about [[affirmative action]] is accurate and will remain in the entry. Repeated attempts to remove it without justification will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Justified how? Saying that Obama's life amounts to nothing more than lucking out with affirmative action isn't a quantifiable statement...at all. It is nothing more than a completely biased statement and does in fact convey a sense of bigotry. The edits I've made to the article have not introduced some virile liberal bias, I've simply elaborated on contentious issues and removed language and phrasing which is decidedly opinionated. Just because someone disagrees with you [[Aschlafly]] does not make that person wrong. Stop using the power which you have been granted out of good faith by the rest of this site to act like the NKVD, censoring whatever you feel like, and threatening those who disagree with you through bans or some other reprimands when they have only sought to maintain neutrality and expand factuality.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 15:45, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Your racial bullying is not going to work here. [[Affirmative action]] is a big part of Obama's career and his support. Don't delete it from the entry and don't deny that the Harvard Law Review is a very liberal institution that uses [[racial quotas]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Racial bullying? I'm sorry my defective leftist brain must not be able to comprehend your superior Divine logic. But I'm not the one throwing baseless affirmative action rants into what should be a neutral and factual article. Even Clarence Thomas would tell you just how bigoted and perposturous such a claim is.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly: Enforcer of <s>Truth</s> ==

So, after having edited the Obama article for the third time to remove some of the more opinionated wording, removing the baseless affirmative action claim, and expanding on the procedures of the Illinois Senate to give people a better understanding of why Obama voted "present" 129 times, Conservapedia Fuhrer [[Aschlafly]] has threatened to ban me if I edit the article again, despite the neutrality and factuality of my edits. Does anybody else think this is somewhat of an abuse of power as well as an attempt to enforce his own opinion on the rest of the site, and, is there someway that we could replace him with someone who is not a fanatical reactionary.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
:It's Andy's site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)
: :Agree it's Andy's site. Of course Andy should be ashamed of himself; but it's still his site. Andy has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of his mom's clout. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]
::: It's Andy's site?!?!?! I was under the opinion it was an encyclopedia![[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 09:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)

This is the reason liberals will win the whitehouse , people are tired of these attitudes , people need to move into the 21st century .... quickly. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== It's ASTOUNDING! . . . Why? Don't you people know how Congress works? ==

"For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times."

Why is that astounding? That is an incredibly SMALL number. Congresspersons vote on thousands of issues each TERM. And for Barack Obama to have been a Senator for EIGHT YEARS and to only not vote 130 times... lol.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

:"As for his voting performance, Obama liked sitting on the fence. He is recalled for taking full advantage of an Illinois rule that lets you vote "present" if you don't want to commit yourself. Illinois State Senator Bill Brady recalled: "I learned very quickly that the 'present' vote, where the button you press is very appropriately coloured yellow, is the chicken's way out." ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''])[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: Voting "present" 130 times is NOT a small number. It is an astounding large number of times to duck important issues, so large that even [[Hillary Clinton]] has ridiculed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::It's a fair point, but I'd suggest that the article should nonetheless give some concept of scale. 130 "present" votes translates to about 3% of the votes cast, which quite frankly isn't a lot. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:06, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: It is enormous. A politician is serving only himself, and not his constituents, by ducking so many important issues. You won't find any earnest politician voting "present" so many times and ducking so many important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: But those statements that you make, Andrew, are all opinions that aren't sourced from cited sources. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, merely trying to ensure that we have the most accurately cited article we can have; all I'm saying is that in order to support the claim that voting present 3% of the time - which purely quantitatively doesn't '''seem''' like much to the average obsever - you'd actually need to give '''a solid, cited example''' of an "earnest politician" who hasn't voted present on a comparable proportion of issues. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:34, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The reversion removed a silly, self-serving quote that only filled the entry with junk. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The reversion this morning reinserted a liberal deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Introduction to article ==

I don't disagree with the subject matter, but I think there's a problem with the introduction. Most of the information seems to relate to his ideological/political stances, and so would be better placed in the body of the article rather than posted up front. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: We put the important stuff first here. But thanks for your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Some things need altering like the affirmative action thing. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 15:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: What's the problem? No [[liberals]] have any problems in complaining about alleged special preferences for [[conservatives]]. When someone gets special treatment and then seeks to become president on that basis, it's fair game to criticize the special treatment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Maybe he DID get SOME special treatment , but the article suggests that everything he`s achieved in life is a result of AA. Maybe it needs a little tinkering with, it comes across too strongly , there is no problem saying that AA helped him but to say thats the only reason he got anywhere in life is a big jump. If he becomes president (trust me there is a good chance of it) are you going to say he only became president as a result of AA? Thats just not possible, people voted for him because they liked him and his ideas not because they felt sorry for him for past racism towards black people.--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 06:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:: To be fair, "no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained ... [by] affirmative action" is a much stronger statement than, say, "he could not have achieved the heights he has in the absence of affirmative action." The former claims he has _no_ achievements of his own, which seems so exaggerated that I'd believe it was written by a troll if you weren't defending it yourself. I would never consider entering politics, and even I have what might reasonably called "personal achievements." I'm sure Obama has some too. The latter statement merely (rightly!) observes that his achievements would never have elevated him to the status he's achieved, if it were not for liberal affirmative action; isn't that more like what you mean? [[User:Coas|Coas]] 16:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Needs a major overhaul... ==

On the whole, this article, I believe, needs a major overhaul. Firstly, too much of this, while true, is written in so many ways like gossip. A glaring error that any serious writer would immediatly reject is the phrase: "Obama is SO pro-abortion..." It sounds like some high-school kid exaggerating to a friend. While it may be true, to phrase it in such a way is very unprofessional, and degrades the credibility of the article.

Also, while I understand that many see this article as an outlet to vent frustration at an inexperienced, unproven candidate, to write the entire article in a highly critical light errodes the circumstantiated tone that I assume Conservapedia strives for. Those not well informed might see this article as bigoted and hateful, whith spurious and unsubstantiated claims. My advice is to write these facts in a neutral, detatched style, as is the case with most encyclopedias. To do otherwise detracts from Conservapedia as a whole.

A few suggestions just from the very beginning:

1. "Obama is so pro-abortion..." should be changed to something like: "Obama has a well-noted stance of pro-abortion, demostrated in cases such as his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants protection act, which was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate."

2. "Obama has absolutely no military..." needs to be reworked into something more or less as follows: "Obama has a distinct lack of military, executive, and foreign policy experience as evidenced by..." and include some example of how he simply has not been in a position where he could gain any of this experience.

3. "Throughout his career, he has repeatedly ducked..." has too much opinion attached to it, and the "...in an apparent attempt..." part reeks of unprofessionalism. A good alternative would be "Obama has many times abstained from taking a controversial stand on certain issues, voting 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay' a substantial 130 times during his career as an Illinois state senator."

Much, much more needs to be done for this to sound like an authoritative encyclopedic article instead of an opinionated rant.
--[[User:Churro|Churro]] 01:18, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==
I'd like to add a few paragraphs about Obama's foreign policy experience. Any chance the article can be unprotected? --Jimmy 21:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: The article was unprotected for a long time, and endured repeated attempts at liberal bias. How about suggesting your edits here first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::== Foreign Policy Experience ==
::Sen. Obama has been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations since his election to the Senate. <ref>http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html </ref>

::He has visited many countries in his capacity as a Senator.

::Russia and former Soviet republics: Met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. Also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).
::United Kingdom: Met with Prime Minister Tony Blair during visit with Sen. Lugar. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit </ref>

::Visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad: Discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/ </ref>

::Ten day tour of the Middle East: Talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ </ref>--Jimmy 22:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==

The information provided is completely incorrect. Senator Obama has indeed visited Continental Europe on official business - he visited Eastern Europe in August 2005, taking in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the UK[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]. Please correct the article.

Not only is the article factually incorrect, but the suggestion is made that this 'lack of travel experience' would make him unsuitable for the Presidency. To which I would point out that the current President George W. Bush, had NEVER visited Europe until a year '''after''' taking the Presidency. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 13:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Political Views section ==

I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries. It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how [[liberal]] he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out. I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance?
Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated ==

There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.

I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.

:: I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias. (I joke, I joke) It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do. It isn't like this problem is going away either.--[[User:Jroyale|Jroyale]] 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Étienne Léger
:Are you referring to Pastor Wright? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.

::: Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.

: Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

== This Article is Ridiculous ==

For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative <ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref>" after the Marxist comment? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter. By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about. Didn't you get the memo? That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist<ref>Barack HUSSEIN Obama!</ref>. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter... ==

Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.

== Required Changes ==

This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Several claims don't pass muster.

- The claim "'''Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience'''" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant. There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains. The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect. While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available. The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.

:: You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators. Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'''." This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense. I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.

:: The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry. All you have to do is cite some counterexamples. You can't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors. That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement". Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He won a seat in the U.S. Senate after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes'''." This claim is completely without merit. According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain. The idea that '''liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records''' is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie. According to Fox News, the records were released when the ''Chicago Tribune'' and Chicago TV station ''WLS'' sued. Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private. According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released. Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html]

:: The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama. Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known. Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement. As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.

:: I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of [[affirmative action]], because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly? But there's no name attached to any of these comments? Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?

As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article. You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair. In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same". Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President. No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid. Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

: "Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair. If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience. But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing or silent positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight. Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice? John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see? Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain. Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin?

::PS Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to? it's impossible to know where these comments come from? [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly: Contrary to your opinion, I am not the clueless one here. I happen to know that the United Kingdom is a part of Western Europe so therefore it can be concluded that Obama has made a trip to Western Europe since he visited London to see Tony Blair. Since you are making the claim that his foreign policy experience is the 'lowest 10% of senators', could you provide a reference please?

:::Where is this overwhelming evidence that Obama's success is explained by affirmative action? If it is so overwhelming, then you or the person that made this assertion should have absolutely no problem providing the reference. Where is the evidence in the article? I couldn't find anything. Could you provide this allegedly 'clueless' individual, as you like to call me, the specific line number?

:::Because Ryan refused to run for office after his divorce proceedings were made public, this means, using your line of reasoning, that the 'National Republican Senatorial Committee' lacks credibility. Perhaps this should be added to the article?

:::There are a lot of alleged 'facts' in this article that are nothing more than gossip and unsupported innuendo. According to the commandments that you wrote, these items should be removed. How can this article be a part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' if no attempt is made to follow the commandments and guidelines?

:::I happen to care what Obama, Clinton, and McCain stand for because I plan to vote and I want my vote to mean something. If someone wants to base their vote on what is written in Conservapedia, then they will be seriously misinformed. --Jimmy 21:30, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Law Professor ==

The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed. According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)

:He was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor. There's a big difference. The University of Chicago only ''considers'' Obama a professor, he wasn't actually one, as he falsely claimed to be. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::You're wasting your time, Tordenvaer. Certain people on here see nothing wrong in saying someone's not a professor if it suits their purposes and/or prejudices, even when there is ample evidence otherwise. See the Richard Dawkins [[Richard_Dawkins|article]] and [[Talk:Richard_Dawkins|Talk Page]] for an extremely good example of this. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::As an aside, Lyra, considering it is, in fact, universities that bestow the title of 'professor', if the University of Chicago basically saying that, as far as they were concerned, he was a professor, isn't 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? You also state that there is a big difference between 'Senior Lecturer' and 'professor'. Read the link given by Tordenvaer. The University of Chicago completely disagrees with you there. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, if [[liberals]] like someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[liberals]] are going to call him a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Perhaps we should add this to [[liberal]] positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Done. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, if [[conservatives]] dislike someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[conservatives]] are going to deny that he is a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

: Really? Perhaps you can tell us who peer-reviewed Obama's work, and when, and what the outcome was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most likely the U of C law faculty did, repeatedly throughout his time working there, as all departments do with all faculty. The outcome was that they asked him to join the faculty full-time. In addition to the statement linked above, there is [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article] (para 3). They did not offer him a full-time position because they thought he was good-looking. [[User:Murray|Murray]]

:::: Well, I'll put it this way - who is more likely to be correct in who is or is not a professor? Aschlafly or the Universities of Chicago and Oxford? Personally, I'll go with the universities, and thus accept both Dawkins and Obama are professors, in one way or another. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 22:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: Certain people can't handle the ''truth'', Urushnor. Regardless of what U-Chicago's ''feeling'' is, he's a senior lecturer, not a professor. The university never gave him that title. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: 'The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

:::::: 'From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, '''Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School'''. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'[[User:Jtimber|Jtimber]] 23:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Precisely. It seems that certain people cannot handle the truth, indeed - Obama made a comment, in passing, which his opponents seized upon to try to brand him as a liar, because they thought it was wrong, as his actual title was 'Senior Lecturer', but now can't handle the truth that, in fact, 'Senior Lecturers' are regarded as professors, so the comment was correct. I also note, Lyra, that you still haven't actually answered my question - given that it is universities that bestow the title of professor, if a university saying that someone is or was a professor is not 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I believe I've already answered that question. My point was that he was not full-track. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No, from the above, your point was quite clearly that 'he was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor', to quote you exactly. The University of Chicago says he was a 'Senior Lecturer', which is considered to be a professor. So you haven't actually answered that question at all, unless you changing your point is your way of saying, 'oops, I was wrong - he ''is'' a professor, just not a full-time or tenure-track one'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 01:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Allow me to explain. When he says he is a ''professor'', many people will assume he means a full-time teaching committment, regardless of U of C's technicalities. It's a bit deceitful. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::During the time he worked as a senior lecturer, he was practicing law as well. I've actually read ''The Audacity of Hope''. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't really think it's that deceitful; he's just using common parlance versus the technical term. Technically, yes, he was a senior lecturer/adjunct faculty, but I knew lecturers at the university who would hold themselves out as professors. It's not deceit, it's just simplification, I think.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 20:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously. If someone like [[Dan Quayle]] had attempted Obama's self-serving "simplification", as you put it, then Quayle would have been strung up and run off the stage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::I totally concur--what Obama should be saying is he worked as a "part-time professor," if at all. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 20:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Obama held the position of senior lecturer for years, and surely understood what his title was. It doesn't seem too much to expect him not to exaggerate his credential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

''In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously...'' Yes and no. Titles are meaningful, and indicate how prestigious a position is and generally the salary level. However, titles vary dramatically across university systems. For example, in the U. of Illinois system, Adjunct Professor is the equivalent a Lecturer at U of C - it indicates someone who is a part-time faculty member, hired solely to teach classes, either because there are not enough full-time faculty or to allow the full-timers more time for research. In the U. of California system though, an Adjunct Professor is a full-time faculty member, and UC guidelines suggest that on, for example, grant applications, an Adjunct Professor use the title of Professor to avoid confusion. So an Adjunct Professor in Champaign would be stretching it to use the title of Professor, whereas someone with the same title in LA or Berkeley would not. So titles are certainly meaningful, but their specific meaning isn't always readily apparent [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Would someone unlock this for a brief moment? Thanks! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== First St. Francis Assisi, then Mentang Besuki ==

There's a line in the Early Life section of the bio that gets the order of Obama's Indonesian elementary schools reversed. The Catholic one was first, for almost three years. The public one was only the last year or so. The misinformation is repeated in Faith and Values section. Says his father was a nonpracticing Muslim. Other sources say atheist. His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, however. No mention of the Afrocenric theology of TUCC. See Linda Chavez' article in NR online on this. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] 10:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Questions about This Article ==

No offense, but this article is very biased, and much of it lacks sources. Shouldn't there be sources for it, and if there are none should it not be removed? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: 43 citations. How many more do you want?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something to cite things that are obviously personal attacks, such as this:
"He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.". That sounds more like an opinion than a definition of fact, and there's not citation for it anyway. Also, the lead for his article seems to be one giant summary of his political views, portrayed negatively. Very biased. Not sure how that is delt with here, but we try to keep things neutral on Wikipedia. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:Conservapedia does not require citations for statements like that. And even if they were there, they would just be links to conservative opinion pieces. Best to just leave it alone... the article as it is stands quite well as a reminder to visitors that this is a very different site from Wikipedia, for a variety of interesting reasons.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Image switch ==
I think you meant to say ''add'' placement bias. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama built his campaign on anti-American donations. A photo of his anti-patriotic posture reflects his campaign far more than a standard and unrevealing portrait photo does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::Here are Obama's top 20 donors: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers (investment banking firm), Citigroup, National Amusements (who own 1400 theaters), Sidney Austin (law firm), Harvard, Google, Skadden Arps (law firm), Exelon, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Jones Day (law firm), Wilmerhale (law firm), Latham Watkins (more lawyers), University of Chicago, Kirkland & Ellis (lawyers), Citadel Investment Group. Not exactly a list of crazy liberals. But the point was really the comparison to all the pages of other senators here, all of which (if they have an image) have an official picture at the top. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Meaningless statistic, and only a tiny fraction of Obama's fundraising. His big money source is moveon.org types, and no one can deny that he's tapping into the stridently anti-war (and often anti-American) types. People are going to Obama's entry because he's running for president, not because he's a senator, and the photo placement should reflect that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Furthermore, I do not see how you can call forces within America anti-American, that title used to be restricted to ''foreign'' forces. Soviet Russia was anti-American. MoveOn is not. The American Colonies were anti-British, I suppose. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::You might as well give it up, before you get 90/10ed. From reading this site, it's pretty clear that on Planet Conservapedia, the GOP '''is''' America, and Liberals are all mindless robot drones created by Satan himself to DESTROY AMERICA, propelled by their disgusting glandular urges, hatred for all things Good and Holy and American and Conservative (as redundant as that is), and the occasional telepathic directive from the Ghost of Charles Darwin fnord. Thus, the very concept of [[Liberal patriotism]] is an [[oxymoron]]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In Soviet Russia, rules follow you! In any case, Liberal just means willing to embrace new ideas and ''change''. More people should recogize that. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I know its not really important, but the colonials mainly considered themselves British and were fighting for their British rights about up until the Decleration of Indepedence was signed. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:And after that, they would've all been hanged as traitors to Crown and Country if they'd lost. Got to remember that part... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the mini-series "John Adams" is very good, but the assertion that FernoKlump makes is not correct. Originally they were fighting for the rights afforded to all British subjects, but long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, most of the "heavy hitters" had long since realized there would be no reconciliation with the Crown. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes. The Founding Fathers must have been considered very unpatriotic by the British during the Revolution. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Maybe most of the "heavy hitters" had realized they were fighting for their independence, but the avererage colonial didn't really realize that until the decleration. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
==Category==
Put him in [[:Category:African Americans]]
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:07, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: This is absurd. [[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::Except for segregationists [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Those were primarily Democrats, you realize? Racists are just that, and don't depend on idealogical labels to be so. I know so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" who often express racist thinking. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Shall I put [[Adam Sandler]] into [[:Category:Jewish Americans]] too, Deborah? --

:Those segregationists were southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") and were social conservatives. Status as a Democrat or Republican doesn't necessarily label people in the past as liberal or conservative. Today Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be liberal, but the Republican party was originally established to end slavery. Abolitionism was a VERY liberal idea at the time. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: No, [[abolitionism]] came from [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]], and they were [[conservative]]. Southern Democrats (like [[Jimmy Carter]]) were not [[conservative]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::They weren't conservative if they wanted an end to slavery. Liberal, by definition, is the advocacy of change. An end to slavery would have been change. Therefore, an advocacy of the end of slavery would be liberal. Southern democrats, like Governor George Wallace, were conservatives because they sought to ''preserve'' the existing institution of segregation.

From dictionary.com:

Liberal- Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

Conservative- Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

[[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your definition is meaningless. [[Conservatives]], for example, want big change on [[abortion]]. Use the more meaningful definitions and explanations found on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::No, Conservatives want to ''revert'' back to before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. Look at that definition again. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::FernoKlump, your history at CP is one of endless talk, talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Yet, coming here, you were told up-front, if by nothing else than the name, ''this is a conservative encyclopedia''. Somehow a very small number of users, feel they have a right or obligation to turn this encyclopedia into a debate site. I feel an obligation to point out to you CP wasn't put here to provide a debate vehicle for you and other liberals.

:::You might want to look up, while you are busy with that dictionary, the meaning of "goodbye". I have a feeling you're going to need it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::TK, you probably shouldn't be indulging in personal remarks of that quality, which go against the Conservapedia Guidelines ("You must be civil. No bullying.") Your shirt is still the right color, though, so maybe you'll be okay. Just thought I'd let you know.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

*TomMore, please keep in mind that Conservapedia rejects the European and Wikipedia definitions of being "civil" and "bullying". Me stating facts, about arguing and endless talk, are factual, therefore conservatives do not view that as bullying, or uncivil. What is uncivil is the introduction, ''the forced introduction'', of foreign definitions that American conservatives expressly reject. Users who do nothing but post contentious comments to conservatives, and denigrate what we believe, should perhaps consider starting their own liberal encyclopedia and stop wasting time here. CP doesn't grant the right of endless arguing, talk, talk, talk. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Guys, this is silly. Lets end it. And he is right, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate site. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I'm not a liberal.
2) I understand that this encyclopedia is supposed to have a conservative bias, but it has degenerated into a "how liberals are ruining America" encyclopedia. I really like the idea of an encyclopedia that tries to present things from a conservative view, but this site is just embarassing to the conservative cause and unrealistic (like "[[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race", when reality says otherwise). There is a big difference between a conservative point of view and a conservative version of reality. If I deserved to be banned for fighting against the lies that make conservapedia unreliable, then ban me. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, not in the MVSN. Doesn't count.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::MVSN? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The blackshirts (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) ? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:17, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Don't know who they are... I looked at [[blackshirt]]s but there's nothing there. It's just a nickname :)--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't see anything on conservapedia about what 'MVSN' would mean, so I thought it might be a wikipedia term. I searched and got the blackshirts, which are basically Italian fascists. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:25, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, this obviously has nothing to do with improving the article, so lets end it. Thanks in advance, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed addition ==

It is seeming like this was lost due to all the chatter on the talk page, i don't know what everybody thinks of it. here is my proposal under "faith and values" section:

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

: I've unprotected the page for you to edit it as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Ideologically motivated "citation needed" insertions, for statements that are not seriously disputed, are not allowed. This is not [[Wikipedia]] where that same stunt by liberals occurs repeatedly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank-you for the explanation. My citation request was not 'ideologically motivated', it was a simple request for a reference to an 'ideologically motivated' statement. My request also follows Commandment #2, something you have been willing to overlook in many of the articles I have edited. I get the idea that I would not be afforded the same opportunity to make the same statements without references since I'm not an administrator or the founder of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 22:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm reinserting the other edit since you have no objection to it, thanks. --Jimmy 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's actual title was Senior Lecturer, not Professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: And according to his university, a senior lecturer is a professor. It's that simple. --Jimmy 22:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: You're misconstruing what the media relations department said. Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I am really interested to know what you are basing your "Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't)" on Aschlafly?
What info do you have to say it is the perception of the media dep. and not actually true?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

If you cannot give ANY evidence to back your claims up Aschlafly then the article should include what the university states. And, I might add, the media dep. is responsible for answering media enquiries hence the media dep. answering the query whether or not Obama is a prof. or not.
So ADD THE REFERENCE OR LOOK LIKE A FOOL. Your choice
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your quarrel is with the dictionary, not with me, and the citations about the "professor" issue are well-supported by the entry. In case you have problems following a link, I'll quote the observation on the Democratic Underground site, which is also well-supported with cites: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307]

::[Obama's] publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort .... Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of [[affirmative action]] in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

::... [H]e is not a Professor of Constitutional Law. Nor is he an assistant professor or associate professor. ...

By the way, AdenJ, any more namecalling from you in violation of our rules will result in blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Heh. We see what you did there--quoting the website Democratic Underground as if to show that even liberals think Obama's professor claim is invalid. In reality, of course, the DU item was posted by an anonymous commentator ("agdlp"), something anyone could do, and hardly a reliable cite given that said post provides no evidence, just links repeating the claim. I could go on that site and write a post saying that Obama is an alien from the planet Mar’xennui, but that wouldn't make it true or cite-able. And as to your (repetition of the) claim that "given his relatively strong academic credentials...Obama would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position...but he didn't", please note that the UofChicago statement notes that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times, but declined.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your comments don't add anything. Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama is somehow a professor, then suit yourself. By objective standards, including the dictionary, he plainly is not and never was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::How about we compromise? "Obama has claimed he was a constitutional law professor when he was actually a Senior Lecturer." That seems to fit with the facts better, and it circumvents what is starting to amount to a semantics debate. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, that doesn't capture the false boasting. And, by the way, your other edits to this entry also do not convey the truth, as in the boasting about the poverty bill that was a non-starter and never passed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which edit was that? The only edits I've made to the page were the foreign policy experience one (which you've reverted) and helping organize the sections a bit. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question about lead ==
The opening line of the third paragraph reads "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." While nobody can dispute the lack of military or executive experience, could his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee count as foreign policy experience? Don't get me wrong, it's still not much experience, but it would seem to be enough to remove the foreign policy part. Thoughts? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:41, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Mere membership on a congressional committee does not constitute "foreign policy" experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: It doesn't make him a scholar or an expert on it, but I would've thought it would move him out of the category of "absolutely none". --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ampersand: You are now finding out that facts are not a substitute for the world that the Conservapedia leadership has constructed. It is a fact that Obama has foreign policy experience, but that does not matter to the people in charge. I have brought up issues like this numerous times on many other articles but usually nothing happens. Nothing happens to the articles this is, but I have been blocked on numerous occasions for trying to make this encyclopedia reflect the real world. Good luck! --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Merely being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. That is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You are absolutely 100% correct. But it has been demonstrated that Obama has made overseas trips with the Foreign Affairs Committee and has discussed policy with other world leaders and diplomats. This is a fact that cannot be denied in face of the irrefutable evidence that has been provided. No matter how limited his foreign policy experience has been; the sentence in the opening paragraph (Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience) is laughingly false. Presenting such inaccurate information as fact only gives ammunition to Conservapedia's critics. There are plenty of other factual criticisms that can be leveled at Obama without making up dumb factoids. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lead section question ==

In the second paragraph, this sentence "According to political expert and Republican strategist Karl Rove, became his "political mentors," and launched is state Senate campaign and subsequent national political career" seems to be missing a word. Does anyone know what it is?

== Ok, there is so much misinformation here idk where to start ==

I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives, but there is a ton of bad information here that really is not true and to discriminate against this man is blatently racist, especially in the way its being done: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" wtf people?? First of all, generalization such as this is a breach of most online encyclopedia protocol. Second of all, the assumption that he benefited from affirmative action is nothing more than an assumption, NOT fact. He went to Harvard, thus he is a smart man. Furthermore, why should he have to provide proof in a "clear personal achievement" that he does not rely on affirmative action? Assuming that a black man cannot succeed without affirmative action is not only racist, but also untrue. Next controversial statement in this article: "Barack Obama has captivated black and educated white voters, largely because of his race". How can anyone make that assessment? It is, once again, based off pure imagination rather than fact, as is further demonstrated by the lack of any sources backing it. The author also claims that Bill Clinton dismissed Barack's claim that he was against the war from the start as a "fairy tale". I checked the source of this statement, which is in actuality a website acknowledging Clinton's apology towards the "fairy tale" comment. Furthermore we must realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in fact married, which might perhaps explain why Bill Clinton might want to tarnish the rep of Clinton's main opponent. Again, more BS: "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" Sure, he isn't as experienced as Hillary, but generally, when a candidate runs for the presidency, they do not have experience in being president. Another ridiculous claim here: Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." I checked up on this source as well, which has been misinterpreted by the author of this page here. Obama wrote a paper on the constitution, to which he used an analogy of space-time physics. In much the same way George Orwell's animal farm uses a farm to relate to communism. Orwell didn't have to be a farmer to write the book, and Obama doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to read up on relativity. If anything, Obama's ability to understand the basic gist of physics without taking physics courses actually lends credence to his own intellect. Something that didn't come as a result of affirmative action. AND... he can say "nuclear". Neo-cons have no right to bash intelligence. Further on in the article, the author claims that "Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses[9] on the Constitution.[10]" Note the sources. They aren't sources. They don't lead anywhere or cite anything, but are just statements. AND they have nothing to do with this statement. If this encyclopedia is so trustworthy, why can't it provide proper sources for its misinformation?? Later on, the author makes the statement that Barack Obama has voted present 130 time in the IL senate and this is a reason to disbelieve him. This is in fact, true information, but I do have a problem with the heavy slant. Obama's aides say Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Also, in Illinois law it is not unusual to protest bills with a present vote. You can check up on my facts, because it is found in the same source our author used to make the claim that Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times." In the second paragraph, the author says "He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The University of Chicago Law School as of 2004.[14] He is no longer active at the school". Whereas the same source that was cited claims that "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Thus he WAS a professor after all. Check your information next time. I don't mind conservatives, in the old sense of the word. A true conservative worked to maintain the rights of business owners and left the economy alone. A true conservative kept taxes low and government spending no higher. What we get today are social conservatives. People who believe in the white christian male america. People who claim that the only way a smart, educated black man could be running for president is due to affirmative action. You criticize Reverend Wright for saying "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." Look at yourselves. Give this man a chance; he did not go to Harvard because he was black nor does he recieve the support of both white and black america, red and blue america, and male and female america because he is black. This article is not trustworthy, or factual, but it is a bash. Now I am too tired to go through the remaining half of the article. Time to get a kick out of the Kangaroo one.
:I stopped reading after your bigoted "''I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives,'''" remark. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't even have to read that far. The above long-winded rant, too incoherent to read, let alone understand, illustrates the [[liberal]] style. I doubt he'd even agree with a conservative who says that "2+2=4".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Annie Oakley ==
This one needs to be phrased a little better. Just because something is outside of one's generation doesn't mean they can't possibly know what it is. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Nothing in Obama's background suggests he would have any idea who Annie Oakley was, and all evidence (including Obama's age) suggests he wouldn't. The conclusion by USA Today is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::I still think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that because someone was born after a certain date they're immune to cultural influences preceding them. Also, the conclusion's by a syndicated columnist, not USA Today itself. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even John McCain wasn't alive when Annie Oakley died :D . And even Obama knows that Oakley was a female gun shooter. He was using it to make it appear that Hillary exaggerated her experience with guns as a child. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The "Choice" bill is not just "supported by" the [[abortion]] industry, but is for its direct benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lapel pin ==
The sentence "Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin" completely ignores how he's not wearing a jacket. No lapel, no lapel pin. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 00:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama doesn't wear the flag when he is wearing a jacket either. By the way, I do think pins work on shirts! The caption could profitably omit the word "lapel".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: True, and criticism of him for it is valid. I'm still uncomfortable with the sentence being there at all since it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it, though. A more effective attack would be to find pictures of McCain and Hillary wearing them and one of him not and putting them together side by side in a single image to illustrate him not wearing a lapel pin. That'd drive the point home more effectively, I think. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

== How Mike Ditka Unintentionally Boosted Obama's Rise to Prominence ==

An observation that I've not seen commented on in the press...

When scandal ridden Jack Ryan's Illinois US Senate campaign was falling apart, Obama looked like a shoe in....until ex-Bear's coach Mike Ditka seriously began considering pleas from some top Republcians that he should run for the Senate. And Ditka was doing interviews about his and his wife's thoughts on the matter, giving IL Republicans considerable hope. Suddenly, Democrats feared that even Chicago's normally reliable voters might hand the popular Ditka a landslide.

It was during this two or three week frenzy over the question of whether Ditka would run that Obama, with little seniority and experience, was picked to give a major address at the Democrat's National Convention endorsing John Kerry...a move clearly intended to give Obama a boost with Illinois voters. Obama ran with the opportunity and gave a speech that garnered lot's of favorable press and turned him into a media darling and pushed him toward a an extremely early presidential run. In my opinion, his rise to stardom was indirectly sparked by the fear that Mike Ditka might "steal" the IL senate seat out from under the Democrats. Unfortunately, Mike (apparantly at the behest of his wife) decided the Senate life wasn't for him afterall.

Without Mike's near run, Obama never would have become such a media darling...at least not so early in his career.--[[User:Billy21|Billy21]] 13:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Interesting analysis, but I doubt one evening at the Democratic National Convention had much to do with this. I'd say Hillary's electoral weakness is a bigger factor. And, of course, the [[liberal media]] has long been obsessed with race. When [[Rush Limbaugh]] commented that he felt a media focus on race influenced the choice of quarterback on an NFL team, he had to quit his job as a sports analyst.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I always thought the media's obsession with race and gender was incorrect in this race. From my experience, the main dividing line in the Democratic Party right now is generational. Clinton represents the baby boomers while Obama represents the youth, which is a large part of why her strength has been older voters and his strength has been younger ones. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is a higher correlation in voting based on race than on age here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Race is definitely a factor, but within the white Democratic electorate you can see some definite splits that indicate a generational gap. The wealthier you are, the higher your education and the lower your age, the more likely you are to vote for Obama. The lower your income, the lower your education and the higher your age, the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Now, given that many senior citizens, especially those who were blue-collar workers, are on fixed incomes and pensions, we could partially tie income into age. Education-wise, there tend to be more college graduates in the younger demographics than in the older demographics simply because young people have more educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents had. Now of course there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But personally? I view the Democratic primary as a fight between my generation and a generation that's still in a metaphorical way fighting the Vietnam War. That's this young college liberal's take on the Democratic race. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative action==

* He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].

Who said this? Should we endorse it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Joseph Farah: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=58632 The affirmative-action president]

Maybe we should give him credit; I would hate to be accused of [[plagiarism]] over this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Here's some things I found on the subject: [http://www.cnbc.com/id/23579121/][http://www.slate.com/id/2187718/][http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=][http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070515_obama_cools_on_affirmative_action/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think Conservapedia had the term first, see [[Affirmative Action President]], but I'm all for adding citations to others who also use it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::From a couple of the links I provided above, the remark may have come from Geraldine Ferraro. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I think the Ferraro kerfuffle was early March. CP's article on the subject began in January. I think all of these other johnny-come-latelys need to give Andy credit.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::This quote comes from here [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=]:
:::::''"This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard law school because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different?"'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I've checked some more and apparently Conservapedia coined the term [[Affirmative Action President]] first. The uses by others were subsequent to the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Andy... I guess you coined it first! :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:10, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:AndrasK

2008-04-28T03:06:09Z

Feebasfactor: there, forgot signature...

{{welcome}}

I would strongly suggest... you familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|90/10 rule]], as it is not infrequently wielded against perceived troublemakers. In other words, please make some useful additions to non-controversial articles, in order to demonstrate your desire to improve the site overall. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:06, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:AndrasK

2008-04-28T03:05:34Z

Feebasfactor: hello, here is a tip...

{{welcome}}

I would strongly suggest... you familiarize with the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|90/10 rule]], as it is not infrequently wielded against perceived troublemakers. In other words, please make some useful additions to non-controversial articles, in order to demonstrate your desire to improve the site overall. 23:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Compulsive profanity

2008-04-28T02:52:27Z

Feebasfactor: yeah, maybe I had best be clarifying this...

==Sigh...==

This is just another one of those "liberals are bad because..." articles, isn't it? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 20:29, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

: I frequently see [[liberals]] use the "sigh". It's almost as popular among them as the "shame on you" feigned outrage! I'll add the "sigh" to [[liberal style]]. Example usage: "Sigh, is this another example of how [[liberal]] culture harms people?" Answer: yes, it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::"Feigned outrage"? No, I actually am really annoyed by your constant attempts to portray liberals as evil. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:44, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::: You're clueless. Ideas have consequences, and denying that does not help. I haven't used the word "evil" to describe [[liberals]], but denying that ideas have consequences comes pretty close to that word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Revert==
I just changed it to say that Comedy Central is a station rather than a show. Not sure how that's liberal bias. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 21:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

May I ask why my reverts are being reversed? They are completely justified. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:18, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I found it funny. Perhaps my wits are dimmed. :p [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Compulsive profanity

2008-04-28T02:51:56Z

Feebasfactor: well... part of the article was meant to be humorous, right?

==Sigh...==

This is just another one of those "liberals are bad because..." articles, isn't it? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 20:29, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

: I frequently see [[liberals]] use the "sigh". It's almost as popular among them as the "shame on you" feigned outrage! I'll add the "sigh" to [[liberal style]]. Example usage: "Sigh, is this another example of how [[liberal]] culture harms people?" Answer: yes, it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::"Feigned outrage"? No, I actually am really annoyed by your constant attempts to portray liberals as evil. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:44, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::: You're clueless. Ideas have consequences, and denying that does not help. I haven't used the word "evil" to describe [[liberals]], but denying that ideas have consequences comes pretty close to that word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Revert==
I just changed it to say that Comedy Central is a station rather than a show. Not sure how that's liberal bias. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 21:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

May I ask why my reverts are being reversed? They are completely justified. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:18, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I found it funny. Perhaps my wits are dimmed. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T05:38:18Z

Feebasfactor: /* Leader's Guide */ actually a rather large PDF file, but nevertheless...

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T04:51:31Z

Feebasfactor: a good idea to link to?

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T00:00:12Z

Feebasfactor: interesting qualification of critics...

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a documentary charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and set for release Friday, April 18, 2008.

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and an unpaid research associate at the National Museum of [[natural history|Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Stein links Darwinism to the Holocaust, which was perpetrated in part by eugenicists inspired by Darwin's [[theory of evolution]]. "[[Charles Darwin]]'s evolutionary theory was quickly applied to human beings and social structure. The term 'survival of the fittest' was coined and seen to be applicable to humans."<ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1484488</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Reception==
===Reviews===

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger wrote in the typically [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...dishonestly, Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea...[the film] runs entirely off the rails as Stein argues that there is a clear line from Darwinism to euthanasia, abortion, eugenics and--wait for it--Nazism.<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly "deceived" said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The stridently pro-[[evolution]] science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed] at the [[IMDB|Internet Movie Database]]
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom] by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at NPR.com

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-16T23:11:25Z

Feebasfactor: yeah, it's absurd, but the wording here...

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a documentary claiming to reveal how [[intelligent design]] supporters are suppressed and persecuted within schools, universities and the scientific community.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and set for release in the spring of 2008.

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and an unpaid research associate at the National Museum of [[natural history|Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Stein links Darwinism to the Holocaust, which was perpetrated in part by eugenicists inspired by Darwin's [[theory of evolution]]. "[[Charles Darwin]]'s evolutionary theory was quickly applied to human beings and social structure. The term 'survival of the fittest' was coined and seen to be applicable to humans."<ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1484488</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Reviews==

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticises the movie by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claims that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

==Critical response==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly "deceived" said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The stridently pro-[[evolution]] science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

==Alleged Copyright Violations==

On April 9, 2008, legal notice was sent to the producers of ''Expelled'' by the graphic firm XVIVO, LLC, alleging copyright infringement. The notice states that ''Expelled'' includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled ''The Inner Life of a Cell''. XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in ''The Inner Life of a Cell'', and had not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of the material. The notice threatens legal action if the producers of ''Expelled'' do not remove the allegedly infringing segment from all copies of the film prior to its scheduled commercial release on April 18, 2008. <ref> [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/EXPELLED-Letter.pdf] </ref>

The producers of ''Expelled'' responded with a lawsuit filed on April 14, 2008, seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. This lawsuit is currently unresolved.<ref>[http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080415/20080415006769.html?.v=1] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Producers File Lawsuit and Expose Other Efforts to Suppress Free Speech</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed] at the [[IMDB|Internet Movie Database]]
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom] by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at NPR.com

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-04-09T13:13:46Z

Feebasfactor: /* Night-Editing */ good luck! you've put in a lot of hard work and I'm sure Andy recognizes that

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|>> Sep '07]] [[/Oct07|>> Oct '07]] [[/Nov07|>> Nov '07]] [[/Dec07|>> Dec '07]] [[/Jan08|>>Jan '08]]

== Superb Blocks and Unblocks ==

Superb blocks and unblocks last night!!! Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. It's a pity people like that feel the need to do what they do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:27, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Bolding terms ==

HelpJazz, feel free to ask others, but I think the bolding of the key word in the entry is effective, as in [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:I thought you were only supposed to bold it the first time, but if you like bolding it every time then I won't change any others. The manual of style doesn't really indicated either way. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:: The Manual of Style says to bold the first use. It doesn't explicitly say to ''not'' bold other uses, but that is the implication. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Re ==

Oh come on, you know libertarian does not equal liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:''I'' do, very much so. It's a rather large pet peeve of mine, when people confuse the two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Warning ==

Sarcasm in comments to edits will result in the blocking of an account, for obvious reasons. This is a high quality site and it will remain that way. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I'm sorry. I was a little offended when you called me a liberal (twice), intimated that I wasn't smart enough to understand what you were writing, and then suggested that my claims of misunderstanding weren't credible.

:I probably should have held back the sarcasm but I've been sick lately (I slept for almost 30 straight hours Tues/Weds and had a high fever most of the time) and apparently don't have the restraint I usually do. I'll be going to bed soon; hopefully I'll be able to sleep off some more of this sickness and the grumpiness which comes with it. Good night. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:PS: Hopefully I'll get better by spring break; I'll have loads of free time for editing, and a lot of backed up class notes to convert to articles!

==I don't mean to be nosy==
Do you mind if I ask what school you go to? I know someone taking [[chemical engineering]] at Drexel, and it just sparked my interest when I saw you had the same major.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 20:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I go to [[Bucknell University]]. The logo's also on my user page :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:36, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==I can never get my head around it==

Why do people like you contribute here? I mean, people like you are honest, hardworking reliable persons who genuinely want to help out. But this place is little more than a hate site aimed at Liberals and Gays. Their Liberals and Homosexuality articles are the laughing stock of the Blogosphere. I'm a Moderately Conservative Blogger (I back mc Cain) and these ultra's make the rest of us look bad. Decent people like yourself are only an accessory to the broader betrayal of conservative principles, which these guys seem to parody every day with articles like [[Liberals and friendship]] or [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[Gay Bomb]]. Its absolutely amazing. [[User:McCain08|McCain08]] 13:29, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not really sure how to take that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:59, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe he doesn't fixate on only a few articles and views the project as a whole. HelpJazz has been an invaluable contributor and doesn't feel he has to but heads on every small point he may not agree with. We can all find things we may not like, but there is always a great deal of improvement that can be made in other areas. To reduce our site to a few offending articles and ignore the rest is petty and is hardly something that a conservative blogger would do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::I ''do'' know how to take that! Thanks Learn together :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:53, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Learn Together,

:I'm just interested to know what you would consider to be an alternative article I could assess as being trustworthy and encyclopedic? I've hit random page 10 times and I've got, [[Dirge]], [[Decency]], [[Statute of Anne]], [[Lemon test]], [[African Americans]], [[Jonah]], [[Easter]], [[Canadian deuterium uranium reactor]], [[Ocarina]], [[Brisbane]]. Most of them articles are very short, with only the African Americans article standing out but even that is puny by Wikipedia standards. This place, as you like to believe is not interested in developing these run of the mill, largely unpolitical articles. It is obsessed by using Liberals as a catchphrase at every turn. Your right, the majority of articles here are apolitical. But the issue is not how many slander and deface homosexuals and Liberals, but the mere presence of a derogatory and (what seems to me) parody article demeans the entire site and its mind baffling how even minded people could even consider using the site. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:22, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

McCain08's thesis boils down to the crazy idea that by opposing evil, we are betraying goodness. That hearkens back to the heresy that when Jesus said, "Judge not," he meant that Christians should never evaluate any doctrine or deed to whether it is good or bad. Actually, what he meant is to avoid [[hypocrisy]], which is "judging" without applying the standard of judgment to one's own self. This is the error that led to the downfall of TV preacher [[Jimmy Swaggart]] and NY governor [[Eliot Spitzer]].

In fact, it is liberals rather than conservatives who are guilty of this error. They constantly use [[double standard]] judgments, notably giving communists and dictators a pass - literally letting them get away with murder - while magnifying some relatively minor American crimes.

McCain08's comments appear hypocritical or simply pro-liberal when he accuses us of "slandering and defacing" homosexuals. Actually our [[Homosexuality]] article is factual and well deserves its top ten status in the blogosphere. It is rather the liberal media who slander Christians and Jews for standing up to the [[gay rights movement]]. It is rather liberal politicians who have made preaching the righteousness of the Bible a crime in some countries, and liberal administrations who have banned such preaching at many American universities.

Goodness must be trustworthy. To merit the world's trust, good people must expose evil - not only in others, of course (see [[hypocrisy]]), but all around. Confession is good for the soul! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:34, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Standing up to the gay rights movement? What are you standing up for? Really, put down Ann Coulter for a second and think for yourself.

Christ asks us not to look at the speck in our brothers eye when we haven't taken care of the plank in our own. This entire place is preachy, hypocritical and incredibly mean. Jesus would be weeping if he saw what his so called flock have produced.

Standing up to evil? Liberals are therefore evil? Homosexuals are therefore evil? And Liberals giving dictatorships a free pass... I'm sorry, where are you getting this nonsense? What is it that Bush said while campaigning in 2000 - 'I don't like going into another country and telling them how to do things our way' This was of course a response to the interventionist Gore, who advocated going into countries swarmed by civil strife. Clinton intervened in many countries (Though not enough in Rwanda) Read a book, ignoramus. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:55, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:"[[Think for yourself]]" is a [[liberal code word]] for "reject wisdom merely because it comes from another person". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:59, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

And he ignores the rest... Typical tactic, ignore what someone else says, create new saying and somehow fit Liberal into every second sentance. Helpjazz, how can you continue to work with these people? [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 11:25, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I didn't come here to argue or change minds. When I do interact with people, I do so in a kind and calm manner, instead of attacking that in which someone else believes. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:49, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==Carter's mouth==

HJ, thanks for the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Negotiating_with_terrorists&diff=next&oldid=408189 permalink]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

IS there a place I can ask the community as a whole something?--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 17:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not exactly. For general things you might try [[talk:Main Page]], or for a specific issue you might want to try a related debate or article. There isn't really an announcement board, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have done so and I would like you to direct as many people as possible to it cause I need opinions. I would like you to comment as well. [[Talk:No Mercy (2007)|Here you go]].--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 18:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Complaint, but then ... ==

HelpJazz, you complained about a lack of citations for [[abortion deceit]], but then did not help me fill in the citations. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
:It wasn't a complaint as much as a comment. I've been in and out all day, since I'm on a school trip, and haven't had a lot of time to search. I'm generally not good at finding cites for those sorts of claims anyway :-/ I'll see if I can dig anything up now that I'm back for the night..
:In general, I find it best if the person who put in the claim puts in his own cites. You obviously know more about it and better know where to find cites, whereas I would be starting from scratch. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed he had because somebody had already removed him from the template itself. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh I didn't even notice that he was removed from the template. I think he's more or less given up so it's an easy mistake to make. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

Thanks for this:
PS: while "liberal" may mean "moderate" across the sea, "-4.00/-7.18" well... isn't ;-)
Quite true, and nicely phrased =)
I was thinking of changing some of that anyway, but it was night-time here. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, well, the two-axis scale is something in which I'm pretty proficient :) I really like your userboxes, by the way. And I actually agree with a lot of them! (I don't know my exact score off the top of my head, but I'm somehere in the bottom right quadrant on political compass). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:30, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== SofaZebra ==
Thank you thank you thank you.
Your's sincerely, [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:43, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==[[Geology]]==

Help? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:I'm afraid I'm not sure what I can do. I know very little about geography (Christian or otherwise) and Philip's been studying creation science longer than I've been alive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::Quite frankly there are statements in that article which make Conservapedia a laughing stock. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I didn't really read it. I'll give it a once-over and let you know what I think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I unprotected the article, and a quick glance shows nothing strange. I'd like Will to be more specific. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== "Libertarian" ==

Just face it, you are a conservative. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:19, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:As much as this destroys my street cred to say so, I differ in one essential area: I don't think that my conservatism should be pushed onto others through the coercive force of the government. If nothing else, you've got to admit that I at least have the lingo. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Ouch. You so have *zero* cred now. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah. Can't get a street loan anymore :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Admit it Jazz, you is YEC. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Nope, just open minded and respectful of other people's beliefs :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:26, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for helping me find out how to put in a signature. I appreciate it! {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

==Multi-use refs==

Please help me fix the refs in [[Little Black Sambo]]. One more good example, and I think I can learn to start doing it myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:I think I got it. I couldn't change the first two refs, because they inlcuded text as well as the website, but I changed the rest for you. Basically one of your references (usually the first one, but it doesn't actually have to be the first) should be in the form:
::<nowiki><ref</nowiki> name="'''name'''">'''Reference info'''</ref>
:And all the other references just need to say
::<nowiki><ref</nowiki> name="'''name'''" />
:I always forget the extra "/" in the secondary refs. Oh and if you don't spell it right, it won't work ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:35, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Night-Editing ==

The feedback has been very positive about your efforts, HelpJazz. I hope to be able to promote you to night-editing by the end of the weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Thank you so much Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to your decision. 23:01, 2 April 2008 (EDT){{unsigned|HelpJazz}}

Congratulations HelpJazz on your achievement. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 17:46, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, night-editing looks good but I have to wait on another Sysop's return on Monday. Thanks for your patience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:Hey HelpJazz, just wanted to throw in my best wishes here. You've really done a lot for the site and I'm sure everyone supports you. For what it's worth, I feel you've definitely earned night-editing (so let's hope that other Sysop gets back to Andy soon!). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 09:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

I'd like to thank you for being helpful and accommodating in the time since I joined; you have not been angry, accusatory or unkind at all. I do wish people could be more civil, recognise that more than one opinion can be legitimate, and at least try to prepare to change one's mind. I am also sorry that an agreement could not be formed: I know that it was unlikely on such an almost cherished article, but my views have been stated, and could still be acted upon (particularly about moving said phrase). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 13:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:I do my best to be helpful. It's hard sometimes :) If you are having trouble with the more contraversial topics, I'd love to learn more about [[mathematical physics]]. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sources - Anorexia nervosa ==

I can't recall good sources right now, but I'm working on it. Thanks!--[[User:Parker|Parker]] 10:33, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! I guess I couldn't find anything for "wanarexia" because it's actually spelled with two "n's". D'oh! Good work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:03, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Feminism

2008-03-31T23:37:17Z

Feebasfactor: so is this ok, Andy? I tried to base it off your comment in the talk page, which I felt helped there to clarify the matter

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|right|300px]]
'''Feminism''' originally was an expression used by [[suffragettes]] - who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole. Specifically, modern feminists tend to:

* believe that there are no inherent differences between men and women and that all inequality is the result of men oppressing women<ref>The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no sex differences; therefore advocacy for equal rights must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes. [http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/frauds1.htm]</ref>
* believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by parents in raising children.<ref>Leading feminist [[Hillary Clinton]]'s famous book was entitled, "It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us," in reference to raising children.</ref>
* loathe [[chivalry]] and dislike men patronizing women, as in holding the door open for them
* be anti-father, viewing traditional [[marriage]] as unacceptably patriarchal
* dislike macho activities, like male-only contact sports
* prefer role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* oppose single-sex schooling and seek to abolish all-male ''private'' clubs
* express outrage at highly macho events
* insist that childrearing activities be shared equally by men and women in every respect, rather than a productive division of labor
* support [[affirmative action]] for women
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewife,<ref> "Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"] </ref> and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often a useful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying, despite the confusion and complexity that causes<ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref>

The consequences for America are:

* We have unrestricted sex, [[birth control pill|the Pill]], [[abortion on demand]], an astronomically increased number of [[single mother]]s, [[teenage mother]]s and women in their 40's struggling with [[infertility]]; we have a [[fatherless]] generation who hasn't seen a better example; [[chastity]] is mocked, women are [[sexualized]] and coerced into selling themselves cheap; we have [[no-fault divorce]], deterioration of [[family values]] ... [http://ccostello.blogspot.com/2007/05/feminism-vs-womens-rights.html]

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]], which proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required three-quarters majority on June 30, 1982. The majority of Americans felt that its passage would entail several consequences, including making girls subject to the military draft, the integration of single-sex schools, the possible recognition of homosexual marriage, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. {{fact}}

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (also called "[[Third-Wave]]" feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, but feminist leadership largely failed to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

==Quotations==

===Robin Morgan===

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan

*"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage" - Robin Morgan

*"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire" - Robin Morgan

*"Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human." - Robin Morgan

===[[Andrea Dworkin]]===

*"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

*"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

*"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

*"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

*Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

*"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

*Q: People think you are very hostile to men A: "I am" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

*"Men use the night to erase us" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

*"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

===Marilyn French===
[[Image:Marilyn French.gif|left]]
*"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women ... he can sexually molest his daughters ... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE" - Marilyn French (her emphasis) ''The War Against Women'', p. 182 [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#]

*"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women ... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey" - Marilyn French, ''The War Against Women'', p. 186 [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#]

*"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations ... obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign" - Marilyn French, ''The War Against Women'', p. 21 [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#]

====In fiction authored by Marilyn French====

*My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter" - Marilyn French; The Woman's Room

*"All men are rapists and that's all they are" - Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign) The character Mia in her novel ''The Women's Room'', p. 462 [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0345353617/ref=sib_dp_pt#]

===Other===

*"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

*"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

*"The feminista agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become [[lesbian]]s" - Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

*"The people I'm furious with are the Women's Liberationists. They keep getting up on soapboxes and proclaiming women are brighter than men. That's true, but it should be kept quiet or it ruins the whole racket" - Anita Loos

*"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex" - [[Valerie Solanas]], [[SCUM]] founder (Society for Cutting Up Men)

*"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things" - Jilly Cooper, [[SCUM]] (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by [[Valerie Solanas]])

*"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

*"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

*"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

*"It matters more what's in a woman's face than what's on it." - Claudette Colbert, quoted in Kindling the Spirit by Lois P. Frankel

*"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6

*"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression" - Sheila Jeffrys

*"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated" - Catharine MacKinnon

*"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman" - Catharine MacKinnon

*"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs" - Catharine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; Universities of Michigan & Yale)

*"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" - Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in ''Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies''

*"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men" - Sharon Stone, Actress

*"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive ... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not [[Rambo]]" - Jodie Foster, Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine

*"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race" - Sally Miller Gearhart, in ''The Future - If There Is One - Is Female''

*"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference" - Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime

*"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males" - Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

*"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them" - David Angier

*"To use the word [rape] carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him. … They [men unjustly accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions." - Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar in 1991 [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973077-6,00.html]

*"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it" - Barbara Jordan, former congresswoman

*"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release" - [[Germaine Greer]]

*"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence" - Judith Levine, Authoress

*"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love' for the men women share their lives with - husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers." - Judith Levine, Authoress of My Enemy, My love

*"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts' ... includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder" - Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document (A Southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex)

*((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The F---ing Molesters Society" (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory))

*((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SH*T; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY))

*"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do" {{Fact|Date=March 2008}} -- Popular Feminist Graffiti

*"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal" - Sylvia Fraser, Journalist

*Catharine MacKinnon maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid - ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed - they're "hiding from the truth" The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose - Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al, tenets of misandric belief)

*"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal - a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students - I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment ... of persuading students that women are oppressed" - Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women

*"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." - Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

*Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers." (Both above quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, [[Heterophobia]])

*"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages." {{fact}} - Heather Hart 7

*Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organisation for Women

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" - National NOW Times, January, 1988

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - feminist leader Sheila Cronan

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" - Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China" The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole ... patriarch!" - [[Gloria Steinem]], radical feminist leader, editor of Ms. Magazine

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" - [[Gloria Steinem]], editor of Ms. Magazine)

7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women ... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world" - Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988

8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" - Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" - Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981

10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it" - Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race" p. 67

*"Women's chains have been forged by men, not by anatomy." - Estelle R. Ramey

*"I would have girls regard themselves not as adjectives but as nouns." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Our Girls"

*"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men" - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, from her diary of December 27, 1890, quoting a letter she wrote. [http://books.google.com/books?id=CIsEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22we+are+as+a+sex+infinitely+superior+to+men%22&source=web&ots=FqYVyWK-s6&sig=tnXoiGvopCcO1vFaoF7nmSvtXPM&hl=en#PPA270,M1]

From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

*MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants ... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female

*MAN: ... an obsolete life form ... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ...a contradictory baby-man ...

*TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning"

*Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" "... Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down" Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 February, 1996

*“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism” - Catharine MacKinnon

*The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

*<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

*The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said <ref> Fundraising letter, 1992 quoted on http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>:

*<blockquote>"The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref></blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Gender equality]]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.

Talk:Feminism

2008-03-30T03:16:48Z

Feebasfactor: /* "Ideological Edits" */ alternative wording...?

==article problems==
Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==South End Press==
My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==To much emphasis on abortion==
I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

== Misandry ==
This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Excessive quotes? ==

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::There are no rule violations, but the quotations are not explained, not formatted, and are longer than the rest of the sections of the article put together. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::::Have you looked at them though? Some of them don't make sense, some are (supposedly) by feminists and others are ''about'' feminists (with no clear distinction), a lot of them are redundant, there is no formatting, and some of them contain poorly-censored swear words. It might be informative, but it does not look good in an encyclopedia for 75% or so of the article to be made up of unclear, unreferenced quotations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I just put bullet points on those quotes, and it really seems like a terribly excessive list. Does anyone else think that some editing could be done to this to make it seem a little less over-the-top? [[User:Reaganite|Reaganite]] 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== The list of feminist views ==

Is it just me or goes the top list of feminist views come accross as humourous rather than factual , i laughed when i read it because it sounds funny and witty rather than serious and factual. I think the tone needs altering, i can imagine liberals having a field day over it. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think. By the way, "Realist2", "across" has only on "c" and we spell "humorous" without the "our" in [[America]]. Maybe you don't have many feminists in your country. America does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::Why did you remove my reference to feminists wanting tougher penalties for rapists? Surely they do (it was the only referenced point on the list). [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If your can only edit by insulting others spelling or the spelling for the country they come from it shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I am here to be constructive so please dont put others down its not very christain at all. Also how would i know what feminists think ... funny enough im not even a woman so it would be very hard to put myself in that thought of mind. However writing with sarcasm or does not improve the article. I never said whats written is incorrect , i said the tone needs changing, didnt you read or inderstand that Aschlafly? I can say it in spanish if it helps lol. :-)--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Where in her book did Hillary Clinton say that children should be raised by a "village" RATHER THAN their parents? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Difficulty of defining feminism==

It's not easy to define [[feminism]]. Is it "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"? Must one support [[equal rights]] to be a feminist?

Are there feminists who want women to "get more" than men, just as their are minority advocates who are want their group to "get more" than people in other groups? (Is feminism thus a kind of "group selfishness"?)

Is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" consistent with the Bible?

Is it possible to believe that men and women are "equally valuable" but made (in the image of God) to be inherently different? That is, are [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] equally valuable qualities? Or what?

Are there currents in feminism which seek to advance women's interests but which '''do not''' assert that men and women are (or should be) "equal" in all respects?

What, then, is the proper relationship between men and women? Specifically, in the family, what are the proper roles? (How much leeway is there?)

Do all feminists oppose the "stay at home mom" phenomenon? (Or is that only [[Simone de Beauvoir]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Ridiculous Number of Quotes==

About three quarters of this article is made up of selected quotes from selected feminists, often those who do not represent mainstream feminism and are radicalised in their views. There are also a couple of unsubstantiated quotes from anti-feminists which appear to be used to represent fact rather than a person's opinion. Perhaps we could cut down on these or move them to another article ([[Quotes by Radical Feminists]] and [[Quotes by Anti-Feminists]]) in order to make this one a bit more encyclopedic. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

=="Ideological Edits"==

''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should raise children rather than the child's father and mother[5]''

The supporting reference for this is the title of a book, however the book itself states that it states a village (ie a large number of people - teachers, doctors etc) '''in addition''' to parents to successfully raise a child. Not once does the book say that parents are to be denied the main role in raising their children.

''prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women''

Unsupported, mainstream feminism believes in equal roles, that is women can play football and boys can be cheerleaders, they do not believe in role reversal (ie boys cannot play football and women cannot be cheerleaders).

''prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do''

Unsupported, this is a radical view at best.

''Quotes from fictional characters''

The quotes from a character within a fiction book do not provide any valid insight into the mindset of a feminist, even if that book was written by a feminist.

Hope this clears it up, ready for reversion of reversion. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:Sorry, but conservatives believe that no one other than the parents should have the primary role in establishment of values, etc. Perhaps instead of pushing your liberal POV in editing a conservative encyclopedia, you could work as hard finding additional citations that you will approve of, illustrating the point. You cannot deny what is factual, that Feminism is a vehicle for liberal change of the social order, and the destruction of the traditional family. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::This article is not about conservative beliefs, it is about the beliefs of feminists, and it appears that they are currently being misrepresented (the present revision states that feminists believe a village should raise children '''instead''' of parents, whereas the truth is that feminists believe a village should '''support''' parents in raising children). Could you please point out which of my points you believe to not be factually correct? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GySom, the changes you made, apparently to make the article more ideologically neutral, would be a fine thing on Wikipedia, where they like to keep the public sheltered from facts, but not on CP, where we actually offer a choice, not an echo to the so-called "wisdom" of the crowd. From my experience here, I would suggest you concern yourself less with seeking out articles to make neutral, and spend your time creating new articles, helpful content that is both Christian and conservative friendly, because that is the stated goals and perspective of this encyclopedia and its Founders. Leave it to Wikipedia, and the dishonest presentations there, to "cleanse" topics near and dear to the liberals hearts. If you wish to make the changes you have, please provide proof that Feminists don't think that way. Responsive enough? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hang on, are you asking me to prove a negative? Asking someone to prove that mainstream feminism does not accept something is akin to proving that there are no invisible unicorns on Mars. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not my job to weed through every single quote that a feminist has made and then provide an analysis to show that mainstream feminism does not support a claim that is made, it is the job of the person making the claim to support it. Let me lay out the changes I think should be made:

:*Mainstream feminists do not believe a village should raise a child instead of his or her parents, they believe that parents should be supported in their role by others (this I can actually support, by my recollection the book in the reference specifically states that parents should play the main role in raising their children).
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe in role reversal, they believe in the destruction of roles (that is, instead of believing that boys should not be allowed to play football and girls should not believe in cheer leading, they believe that boys and girls should both be able to play football or cheer lead should they desire)
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe that women should not wear dresses and should wear pants
:*A series of quotes from a ''fictional character'' in a book does not provide any insight into modern feminism

:If you have an argument about one of those points please make it, I don't need to hear about how I'm an evil liberal who should run away to Wikipedia as this gets us nowhere. It is conservative ideology to tell the truth no matter what it is, therefore it is imperative to truthfully represent the views of mainstream feminism on this encyclopedia. I guess my edits were ideological after all, just not in the way you think. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 19:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed, I am asking you to prove your assertion, GySom. You made the changes, now back them with proof. ''What Feminists believe is well known''. Do you demand proof of God? That there is air? The Feminist agenda is the complete re-ordering of the nuclear family, its denigration. That has been proved countless times. Your own points above show that Feminists reject completely God's own creation, the differences between men and women. Please stop with these silly distracting arguments promoting liberal ideals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If it has been proven countless times then there should be no problems with finding supporting evidence for it. I am not asking for proof of God or proof of air because the existence of these two is not being debated, rather we are discussing whether or not mainstream feminism believes in the three points I removed, and whether the forth should be included. I notice that you have only taken objection to the first point (regarding families), it is therefore acceptable to alter the information relating to the last three? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, I am not a sysop here, so I certainly cannot stop you from doing so. If you change it back, and the Administrators and/or Andy are fine with it, so be it. I am not going to engage you in some endless discussion about the falsities and naivety of your assumptions, GySom! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I am very open to hearing about the "falsities and naivety of my assumptions" and changing my mind if sources are produced, however at the moment it appears that there are no sources supporting the claim that feminists believe parents should not raise their children (the current cite says the opposite) and it appears that nobody has taken objection to the rewording of the claim that feminists favour role reversal or the removal of the claim that feminists shun dresses or the quotes from the fictional character. I will change the last three points, and leave the first open for now for continued discussion with yourself or others.

:::::Please, I am not trying to invite conflict, I just feel that this claim is not supported and therefore needs to be changed. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

*Yes, to be sure, I am certain those are your intentions! I stand by what I said above, but I have taken the liberty of asking Andy, Conservative and some others to review this. I hope that helps you out. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I look forward to it, I was hoping that two users could have a civil discussion without going and calling in the big guns, but sadly this could not be the case. For those reviewing it here are my arguments:
::#The claim that feminists believe a village should raise a child '''instead''' of his/her parents is unsupported by the reference, those who read the book will find that it suggests that a village should '''support''' parents in raising their child, but that parents should play the main role
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#Quotes from a ''fictional character'' should never be used to make a point for or against feminism.
::Of these only number 1 was argued, and during this discussion there was no mention of why the source was correct, nor were any other sources raised. Numbers 2 and 3 were not argued, and number 4 was supported by HelpJazz. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#The thesis of the book is clear: "it takes a village to raise a child," and by its very terms that denies the exclusive role played by parents in raising children. The point in this entry is correct and you have not proposed alternative language that would be more accurate.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy, could we use your wording just there to clarify it?
*''believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by [[parents]] in raising children.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)